Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the University of Oxford, in the room of the right hon. Hugh Richard Heathcote Cecil, commonly called Lord Hugh Cecil (Manor of Northstead).—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (ADMINISTRATION, NORTH-WEST PROVINCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India in what way the Government of India and the Provincial Governments have, during the past two years, endeavoured to improve the economic and medical aspects of administration in the North-West Province of India?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Provincial Public Health Report for 1935. A director of agriculture and allied departments was appointed in the North-West Frontier Province in December, 1933. It is not possible within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary Question to specify the various ways in which he has endeavoured to improve economic prosperity.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether the steps taken have brought about any diminution of unrest and violence in those parts?

Mr. Butler: I feel sure that any step that has been taken has had the desired result.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

whether His Majesty's Government continue to found their foreign policy on the Covenant of the League of Nations?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir.

Miss Rathbone: Are we to understand that that involves fulfilment of the obligation of Article 16 of the Covenant?

Mr. Eden: I think that the answer is quite clear.

REFORM.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with the reform of the League of Nations?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my Noble Friend to a question asked on this subject on 20th January by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), to which I have nothing to add.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has been taken by the League Council as to the date of the next meeting of the bureau of the Disarmament Conference; and whether he could state the matters to be discussed?

Mr. Eden: The Council has decided that the next meeting of the bureau of the Disarmament Conference will take place on 6th May next. The bureau will decide its own agenda when it meets.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that Germany has now secured equality of status, which was the reason alleged for leaving the Disarmament Conference in October, 1933, will the Government consider inviting Germany to resume its participation in the Disarmament Conference?

Mr. Eden: I think that the House will be aware that there is nothing we should desire more than that Germany should resume participation.

DANZIG.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the relations between the League of Nations and the free city of Danzig?

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs


whether, under the terms of the report of the Committee of Three on the question of Danzig, which was recently endorsed by the Council of the League of Nations, provision has been made for safeguarding the political rights, safety, and property of these citizens of Danzig who are not members of the Nazi party, and who have been loyal to the Danzig constitution, for the administration of which the League of Nations is responsible?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House an assurance that nothing has been agreed to by the Council of the League of Nations that will weaken the system for the protection of the minorities in Danzig?

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House full information regarding the position in Danzig and as to whether, at the recent meeting of the League Council in Geneva, discussions took place regarding the violation of the Danzig citizens democratic rights by the action of the Nazi party in imprisoning members of the opposition political parties without trial, in banning opposition newspapers, and prohibiting trade unions and political parties; and what steps were taken to restore to the Danzig people the freedom guaranteed them under the protection of the League?

Mr. Eden: As the result of a resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Nations in October last, the Polish Government was invited to seek, on behalf of the Council, the means of putting an end to the situation described in the general report of the League High Commissioner at Danzig and thus of rendering fully effective the guarantee of the League of Nations. The Polish Government accepted this task and, after protracted negotiations with the Senate of the Free City was able to inform the Council in a report dated 26th January that it had received an assurance from the Senate that the latter was resolved to carry out the Statute of the Free City and the obligations resulting therefrom. Furthermore, the Polish Government quoted a declaration made to it by the Senate to the effect that the Free City based its relations with the League High Commissioner on the legal Statute in

force. In these circumstances, the Polish Government considered that, if the Senate in future were to afford the High Commissioner and the Council all the assistance required to enable the League to carry out its task, then the High Commissioner should take care to see that the internal administration of the Free City should not be hampered.
The report of the Polish Representative was considered in the first place by the Committee of Three set up by the Council in July, 1936, to follow the situation at Danzig. This Committee, as the House is aware, is composed of the Foreign Ministers of France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Committee, after a full and careful study of the situation in all its aspects, submitted a report to the Council. In the course of that report the Committee observed that, on the basis of the Statute of the Free City, the relations between the League of Nations and Danzig had passed through two phases. Until a few years ago the Council acting in discharge of the principal duty laid upon it by the Treaty of Versailles was frequently concerned with differences between Poland and Danzig, but happily the two parties had been able to adjust their differences, and the Council had not recently been called upon to deal with matters affecting Polish-Danzig relations.
Since then a new political situation had arisen and the constitutional liberties had on several occasions been appealed to in circumstances which, at the time when the statute was drafted, might have been regarded as very unlikely to occur. The guarantee thus given had no essential connexion with the normal functions of the League; but having given it, the League was bound to do its best to fulfil it. It was in these circumstances that the Council was called upon to consider its report. The Committee put forward the conclusion that the information which it had received from the Polish representative, and the assurances which had been given to him on behalf of the Senate, offered sufficient grounds for expecting that the political tension in the Free City would be lessened and that conditions would be established in which a High Commissioner would be better able to discharge his functions.
It was not without grave preoccupations that the Committee recommended to the Council the adoption of the present report and the appointment of a new High


Commissioner. But in submitting its recommendation, the Committee was influenced by the consideration mentioned above and by the fact that the guarantee by the League of the constitution of the Free City is part of a complex political structure, to the disturbance of which the Council would certainly wish to avoid contributing so long as possible. The Committee added that the new High Commissioner would, when he had been able to form a definite opinion, certainly wish to let the Council know under what practical conditions he thought he could carry out his functions. The Committee's report was adopted by the Council. It is intended to appoint a new High Commissioner as soon as possible.
I am taking steps to place in the Library of the House, for the information of hon. Members, copies of certain relevant documents. These are: the report of the Polish representative to the Council, the report of the Committee of Three, the statement made by me to the Council in presenting the report of the Committee of Three, and the statement made to the Council by the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it the intention that the new High Commissioner shall have the same powers and duties as were possessed by his predecessor, more especially as regards the protection of minorities in the City?

Mr. Eden: I should be grateful if the hon. Member would look at these documents, which are extremely complicated; but it is clear that the right of the High Commissioner to ask for information from the Senate, and the duty of the Senate to furnish it, remain unquestioned.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that in substance there has been no weakening of the duty of the League to protect minorities in Danzig?

Mr. Eden: I would prefer not to attempt to put a gloss upon a very difficult negotiation. I would prefer hon. Members to read the papers themselves. There are certain differences in Danzig as compared with other areas, but it is not the question of minorities in the usual League sense, but the question of a German minority as opposed to a German

majority, which is not the usual situation.

Colonel Wedgwood: Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the League have accepted the recommendation of the Polish Commission and have thereby confined the High Commissioner to the foreign affairs of Danzig, and exonerated or excused him from dealing with internal affairs? Are we not correct in reading the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given as a definite surrender of any protection of the working classes and minorities of Danzig?

Mr. Eden: I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to take that view. All I can say is that my colleagues and I in an extremely difficult situation, quite unforeseen by the drafters of this Statute, have attempted to do our utmost, and I would prefer that we should be allowed to see how this arrangement works before we come to a final decision about it.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will it be possible for trade unions in Danzig to exist with greater freedom in future than has been the case in the past?

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House in which sense hon. Members are to interpret the word "free"?

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, to ensure the peace of Europe, he will state that any infringement of the territorial integrity and existing political independence of the state of Czechoslovakia will be treated as an unfriendly act by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to similar questions by him regarding Czechoslovakia on 27th May and 15th July last, of which I am sending him copies and to which I have nothing at pesent to add.

Mr. Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is some time ago, and that since that date our strength has considerably increased; and would an affirmative answer to my question in any way constitute an extension of our obligations under the Covenant?

Captain Ramsay: Will my right hon. Friend remind all our bellicose pacifists that the League of Nations is not a war machine?

Mr. Eden: I prefer, I think, on the whole, my definition to that of my hon. Friend, and the answer that was given some months ago still stands.

Mr. Adams: Might not such a specific guarantee as this stop a possible war before it begins?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. Friend is not so specific as he thinks he is.

BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the directors of the Leopoldina Railway Company have been unable to protect this British investment which is being gradually confiscated by the action of the Brazilian Government, which now finds itself compelled to furnish the company with a loan; and will he notify that Government that the unfair treatment of British savings placed at the disposal of the Brazilian public for developing Brazilian resources is regarded with disapproval by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: I have received no request for support from the company in question, and it will be realised that the question of instructing His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro to make representations on the subject to the Bazilian Government could not be considered unless such a request were received.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there have been any developments since this question was first asked?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this must, in the first instance, be a matter for the company, and there is nothing that I can do until then.

SPAIN.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs particulars of the latest reports he has received from His Majesty's representatives on the conditions in Spain?

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add to the reply which my Noble Friend gave

to the hon. Member on 20th January, and to the full statement which I made in the course of the Debate on 19th January.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not true to say that General Franco is not making any headway at all?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that the hon. Member or myself are very good military experts. We can leave that to others.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied that there has been no contravention by Germany of the international treaties relating to the Moroccan zone, in view of the refusal of the military commandant at Melilla to allow British naval officers access to the aerodromes?

Mr. Eden: As explained by my Noble Friend on 27th January, His Majesty's Government, after making such investigation as was possible, are not aware that any treaty to which they are partly regarding Morocco has been infringed.

Mr. Henderson: Is it the general rule to refuse to allow access to military aerodromes?

Mr. Eden: I understand that that is the general rule; I am not sure whether any particular request was made in this instance and, therefore, whether any particular refusal was received.

Mr. Henderson: Am I to understand that it is the general rule in all countries but not in Morocco?

Mr. Eden: I understand it is the general rule here.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information concerning the last meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee, and the proposals made in the notes from Germany and Italy concerning the despatch of volunteers from Spain?

Mr. Eden: The text of the notes recently addressed by the German and Italian Governments to His Majesty's Government have been made public. It will have been observed that both Governments declared themselves favourable in principle to the prohibition of the despatch of volunteers to Spain. His Majesty's Government have expressed


their appreciation of the helpful nature of these and other replies. The replies which have now been received have been and are still under active consideration in the International Committee. I am not, however, able to add to the information contained in the Communiqués issued by the Committee itself.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will not agree to prohibition upon volunteers until there is also an effective system of control?

Mr. Eden: I should like the prohibition on volunteers to come as soon as possible and the effective control to follow within a few days, but what I would like is not always realised.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If there is to be prohibition on volunteers, without control, shall we not again have the same situation as there was previously, with one-sided observance at the expense of the Madrid Government?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member's reflection has not escaped me.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: May we ask something about the Russian and French volunteers in Spain, and might we not get a recall of the whole lot?

CANTON-HANKOW (HUKUANG) RAILWAY.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the progress of the negotiations for an agreement between the Chinese Government and the bondholders of the Canton-Hankow (Hukuang) Railway for the payment of arrears of interest due to the bondholders and to ensure the regular payment of interest in future?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the negotiations referred to by my hon. Friend are continuing, but I am not in a position to make a statement at present.

Mr. Moreing: Is it a fact that the British, German and French bondholders have expressed their satisfaction to the Chinese Government?

Mr. Eden: I have no detailed information, but I understand that a public statement will be made before very long.

FRANCE AND TURKEY (ALEXANDRETTA).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement to the House concerning the settlement of the dispute between the Governments of France and Turkey concerning the territory of Alexandretta?

Mr. Eden: The terms of the settlement, as embodied in the rapporteur's report which was adopted by the Council of the League on 27th January, have been fully and accurately reported in the Press. The settlement, which falls within the framework of the international obligations of the parties concerned, and does not involve any modification of the territorial status quo, appears to be an eminently satisfactory one, and is due in large measure to the spirit of conciliation and statesmanship shown by both parties, as well as to the skill and energy of the Rapporteur, M. Sandler, who spared no efforts to bring about agreement. In view of the difficult nature of the questions involved, I think it is a matter from which we take much encouragement that under the auspices of the League, in the spirit of the Covenant, and with the help of the League, it has been possible to reach a solution which both parties can find acceptable.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While associating myself with what the Foreign Secretary said about the satisfactory results obtained, and congratulating him on his share in achieving them, may I ask whether there is any ground for pre-occupation in regard to the attitude of the Syrian authorities?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid that is beyond the sphere of my knowledge. There is always fear of pre-occupation in any settlement we get nowadays.

Colonel Wedgwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to come to an amicable settlement in regard to Mosul as well?

ARGENTINE MEAT.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any steps to secure the home-beef producer from the consequences of the new subsidies to be granted by the


Argentine Government to the producers and exporters of Argentine meat to this country?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The action taken by the Argentine Government appears to be designed to offset in part the lower price that might otherwise be payable to producers of cattle in Argentina in consequence of the Customs Duties recently imposed on foreign beef and veal imported into the United Kingdom. The position of beef producers in this country is safeguarded by an Exchequer subsidy and by the quantitative regulation of imports for both of which, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, permanent provision is made in the Livestock Industry Bill at present before Parliament.

Mr. Lambert: How can producers of beef in this country get a reasonable living if they are faced with subsidised foreign competition, plus depreciated currency?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend appears to ignore the fact that there are quantitative regulations and subsidy in force.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Do I understand that the duty on Argentine beef will not have any effect on prices in this country?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say that. My information is that the additional cost is being shared between the producers in the Argentine and the other interests involved. If such action can be taken against a tariff by a foreign Government, it only shows how inadequate a straight tariff is for the protection of agriculture although it has been strenuously advocated in the past by both my hon. Friends.

Mr. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of the advisability of putting on a tariff so high that the Argentine Government will not be able to swallow it?

IRAQ (MILITARY ADVISERS).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that Iraq has invited Turkey to supply her with military advisers, in contravention of the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

WAGES (OVERTIME).

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General if it is the intention of his Department to continue to include the income derived from the working of overtime as a factor in the computation of wages?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): Overtime pay is not a factor which is taken into account when the rates of wages of Post Office classes are determined.

Mr. Viant: May I take it that the subject of my question has not been entirely ignored by the Postmaster-General?

Major Tryon: I have reflected on the hon. Member's question, and I hope he will reflect on the answer.

AIR MAILS.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the total sums paid to Imperial Airways, Limited, for the carriage of mails for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and the amounts paid to any other aeroplane mail carriers during the same period?

Major Tryon: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind payments for the air conveyance of mails despatched from this country. The total payment to Imperial Airways, Limited, in respect of such mails during the year 1936 was £259,000; and to other air companies, or to postal administrations maintaining air services, £185,000. Of this latter sum, £69,000 was paid for the use of British or other Empire air services.

Mr. Day: Can the Postmaster-General say to what the Post Office share amounts?

Major Tryon: The Post Office pays for mails.

Mr. Day: Is the Post Office satisfied with the amount it gets?

SPEEDWELL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to change the Speedwell exchange to the automatic system?

Major Tryon: Arrangements are in hand for the extension of the Speedwell exchange building to accommodate automatic plant; and I hope that it will be possible to effect the transfer to automatic working at some date in 1939.

Sir R. Blair: In the meantime, can the Postmaster-General take steps to ensure greater accuracy in this exchange?

Major Tryon: We are introducing an automatic exchange which the hon. Member will find an improvement.

MOTOR LICENCES (ISSUE, SCOTLAND).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Postmaster-General why certain post offices in Scotland are not authorised to issue renewals of motor licences; and whether, on account of the inconvenience and surprise thus caused to Scotsmen anxious to pay cash to the State, he will take immediate steps to rectify the position?

Major Tryon: In Scotland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, the issue of motor vehicle licences is confined to the larger post offices, on account of the complicated nature of the work involved.

MAILS, ORKNEYS AND SHETLANDS.

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Postmaster-General how long the Shetland mails have lain in Aberdeen; whether any steamer belonging to the North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Company, Limited, is at present lying in Aberdeen ready to take the mails immediately the weather moderates; and if not, whether he will arrange for arty other available steamer lying in Aberdeen to take the mails or, failing that, for the mails to be despatched by air?

Major Tryon: Weather conditions prevented the despatch of the mails due to be sent to the Shetlands on Monday, Wednesday and Friday last week. Letter mails were despatched by special aeroplane on Friday as soon as the condition of the Sumburgh aerodrome, which had been waterlogged, permitted. Another letter mail and all outstanding parcels were embarked on the St. Catherine which sailed from Leith direct to Lerwick yesterday.

NIGHT MAILS, SCOTLAND.

Sir Malcolm Barclay-Harvey: asked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions the night postal train from Euston to Scotland missed its proper connections at Aberdeen in the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, respectively?

Major Tryon: The figures are 31, 35 and 57 respectively. The matter is under investigation.

Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: In view of the great inconvenience, which is constantly increasing, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take energetic steps with the railway company to increase their punctuality?

Major Tryon: We are going into the matter. The failure is due to railway accidents, breakdowns, transport difficulties, fog and snowstorms.

Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can get no satisfaction from the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, will he consider transferring the contract to the North Eastern?

TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (SCOTLAND).

Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange to have a complete telephone directory of Scotland sent to all Scottish subscribers instead of local editions as at present?

Major Tryon: It is already the practice to supply subscribers who make numerous calls to subscribers in adjoining exchange areas with the directories for those areas if they wish to have them. I do not think there is justification for a general supply of directories of all areas; and the cost of such an arrangement, which could not be restricted to Scotland, would, at the least, exceed £250,000.

OFFICIAL NOTICES(POSTAGE).

Mr. Groves: asked the Postmaster-General in what circumstances official notices printed for post with the inscription "On His Majesty's Service" need a postage stamp affixed?

Major Tryon: I am glad the hon. Member has raised this question which enables me to dispel what is, I fear, a prevalent misunderstanding. The printed inscription "On His Majesty's Service" on an envelope or form does not imply exemption from postage. If, however, it bears the "Official Paid" design it is so exempt. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

Mr. Groves: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reply postcards sent by the Ministry of Transport to people applying for examination have on them "On His Majesty's Service," but that they specially say that a 1½d. stamp is needed, and will he tell the House what utility there is in putting "On His Majesty's Service" on the cards if there has to be a stamp on them?

Major Tryon: It indicates the nature of the communication.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: What happens if a stamp is not put on? Does the Post Office send the communication back?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PIT DRAINAGE (DURHAM).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the constant flooding of mines in the County of Durham and to the repeated failures to get the mine owners to come to a pooling arrangement for a drainage scheme; and whether, in view of the importance of coal mining to the community, the Government will consider the advisability of carrying out a proper drainage scheme?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 1st December last to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) of which I am sending him a Copy.

SUPPLIES (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. Errington: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that certain South Wales collieries desire to supply Lancashire consumers but are prohibited from making quotations by the Central Council of Coalowners; and whether, in view of the present state of industry in South Wales and the interference with the coastwise shipping trade of the port of Liverpool, His Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps in regard thereto?

Captain Crookshank: I am advised that the Central Council of Colliery Owners have neither issued a direction nor taken any action to prevent South Wales collieries from supplying coal in Lancashire. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Errington: Will my hon. and gallant Friend give some explanation as to why it is that coal cannot be obtained by Lancashire consumers from South Wales collieries?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir. I have answered the question on the Paper.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will my hon. and gallant Friend explain why it is that the coal merchant in Liverpool who offered this South Wales coal to the corporation was told that he had to withdraw his tender because instructions had been received from the Central Coal Council that South Wales coal was not to be sent to Liverpool?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, I cannot, because that is exactly contrary to what I have just said in reply to my hon. Friend.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (WASHINGTON).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour who will represent His Majesty's Government at the preparatory conference of the International Labour Organisation, which is to be held at Washington, to consider conditions of work in the textile industry; and whether any preliminary discussions will be arranged between the three British groups?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I understand that my right hon. Friend proposes to appoint me to represent His Majesty's Government at this conference. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

RIVER TYNE (POLLUTION).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the question of the pollution of the River Tyne; whether the recommendations of the various local authorities have been considered; and whether any definite action is proposed?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The question of the condition of the tidal portion of the River Tyne owing to the discharge of untreated sewage has had the attention of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, who has recently received a report from the consulting engineers appointed


by him to carry out a technical investigation into the possibilities of a measure of amelioration of the problem. It is hoped that copies of this report will shortly be circulated to the local authorities concerned for their consideration and observations.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that quite recently this question has been considered by the local authorities, who have unanimously recommended a certain scheme or schemes? Has this come to the knowledge of the Government, and do they intend to take any action in the matter whatever?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The hon. Member had better await the issue of the report.

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRAINING CENTRE, SCARBOROUGH).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that much discontent has been expressed by men recently returned from the training camp at Langdale End, Scarborough, as to the food supplied, bedding, sanitation, and lack of proper medical attendance; and whether he will institute inquiries with a view to remedying these conditions?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, Sir. The hon. Member has been good enough to forward a copy of a letter from a constituent about conditions at the centre to which my right hon. Friend is sending him a full reply. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the conditions at this centre as at others are such that the hon. Member need not hesitate to recommend any unemployed man to volunteer for a course there. My right hon. Friend would welcome a visit by the hon. Member and any other hon. Members to this centre or any other centre.

DEFENCE (STORAGE, DISUSED COAL MINES).

Mr. Denville: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider at once the preparation of disused coal mines on the north-east coast, etc., for the storage of foodstuffs or petrol for use in a national emergency?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

PHYSICAL TRAINING (ORGANISERS).

Mr. Short: asked the President of the Board of Education how many local educational authorities have appointed special organisers for physical training; and whether Doncaster is among the number?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. G. Shakespeare): One hundred and seventy local education authorities have appointed one or more whole-time or part-time organisers of physical training and a number of other authorities are considering the question of making such appointments. The number of organisers now employed by local education authorities is 236. A proposal for the appointment of organisers has not yet been received from the Doncaster authority, but it is understood that the authority are considering the matter, and the board wrote to them on 1st December last calling their attention to its importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Sir R. Blair: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of cases heard in the "S" division during the month of November last for driving to the danger of the public and driving without due care and attention, respectively; and how many of the former were dismissed on identical police evidence?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): During November last the courts dealt with 17 cases of reckless or dangerous driving and 32 cases of careless driving reported from the "S" division of the Metropolitan Police. Of the former, eight were dismissed or withdrawn, but without a detailed examination of each case it is impossible to say what police evidence, if any, was available. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, a charge often results from an accident which is not witnessed by the police.

Sir R. Blair: Can the Under-Secretary do something to ensure greater discrimination in the issue of summonses to the same effect?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that.

TRAFFIC FACILITIES (HYDE PARK).

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the arrangements for improving the traffic conditions at Victoria Gate, Hyde Park, by means of a new roundabout and otherwise; and when will the necessary work be commenced?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I am unable at present to add anything to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Paddington, South (Vice-Admiral Taylor) on 25th November last.

Sir W. Davison: In view of the fact that, as I understand, most of the difficulties have now been solved, does the Ministry of Transport recognise how desirable it is to make a start at once on this urgently-needed improvement so that it may be completed, if possible, before the Coronation?

Captain Hudson: There has been no avoidable delay. We had hoped to have this work completed by the Coronation, but owing to the fact that agreement had to be come to with so many different bodies, I am afraid that that hope will not be realised. My right hon. Friend hopes very soon to be able to make a definite statement.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the provisions of the third-party compensation clauses in the Road Traffic Act have proved inadequate to protect the interests of injured persons; and what remedial measures it is proposed to take?

Captain Hudson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) on 27th of last month.

Mr. Watkins: What proportion of people injured in road accidents gets no compensation?

Captain Hudson: I think that question had better be put on the Paper.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS (FINGER-PRINTS).

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: asked the Home Secretary whether he has forbidden, or proposes to forbid, the taking of the finger-prints of youthful delinquents?

Mr. Lloyd: This matter has been exhaustively considered since it was debated in this House in July last. My hon. Friend will be aware that it is proposed to take the finger-prints of juveniles only in cases of those over 14 years of age arrested for serious offences such as shop-breaking, housebreaking and larceny, and not in any cases of merely trivial offences. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that it is in the public interest that finger-prints should be taken in those cases, but in deference to the representations made in the Debate, he has decided to advise chief officers of police that in any case where it is possible to communicate with a young offender's parents his fingerprints should not be taken without their express consent.

Mr. Thorne: Would it not be a good thing for all hon. Members to have their finger-prints taken?

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT, 1933.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: asked the Home Secretary why his office has ceased to issue reports of the children's branch?

Mr. Lloyd: There are a number of reasons—in particular the additional labour involved in the preparation and bringing into force of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933—which have prevented the issue of a report in recent years. My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the value of these reports, and a further report will be issued as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. Rhys Davies: What does the Under-Secretary mean by "as soon as circumstances permit"?

ALIENS (DEPORTATION).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has


been drawn to the statement of the Common Serjeant in a recent criminal case that, though he frequently recommended the deportation of criminal aliens, his recommendations never seemed to be carried out; how many recommendations for the deportation of aliens have been made by the courts during the past year; and in how many cases have such recommendations not been carried into effect and for what reason?

Mr. Lloyd: During the past year 205 aliens were recommended for deportation. In 166 of these cases deportation orders were made or the aliens left the country under their own arrangements, and II cases have not yet been decided. In three of the remaining 28 cases the recommendations were quashed on appeal, in 15 cases it was decided on merits not to make orders, in nine cases it was found impossible to establish the alien's nationality, and in the remaining case the alien who had been released on bail pending appeal absconded.

Sir W. Davison: Can the Under-Secretary amplify the meaning of the words "decided on merits"?

Mr. Lloyd: The entire responsibility for deportation rests on the Secretary of State, and he naturally gives the greatest weight to the recommendation of a court. But he has to bear the responsibility and has to take all circumstances into account. In some cases there is long residence in this country, an ignorance of all foreign languages, and the fact that the man may have married and has children in this country.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary on what principle His Majesty's Government base their decision that a great part of the financial burden of instituting air-raid precaution schemes shall be borne by the local authorities?

Mr. Lloyd: The essentially local character of local schemes of air-raid precautions was explained in paragraph 7 of the Home Office circular to local authorities of 9th July, 1935, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. At the same time the Government have undertaken to bear the whole cost of accumulating the main items of anti-gas equipment which would be required to

implement local schemes and to make contributions towards the cost of additional hospital equipment and fire fighting appliances required to meet emergency conditions. The question of the general incidence of financial responsibility is now under review in the light of representations which have been made to my right hon. Friend on the subject.

Mr. Sandys: Does my hon. Friend accept the principle that responsibility for the protection of the civilian population in any area which is attacked is the common concern of the whole country?

Mr. Lloyd: I would prefer not to make a statement offhand on a subject of that nature while the whole question is under review.

NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many unmarried householders of both sexes have to maintain a dependant to act as housekeeper, but such a householder, unlike a widower or widow householder, does not get relief from Income Tax in respect of such housekeeper; that the total Income Tax paid by such an unmarried householder having an earned income of £400 with three persons in the household is now £24 18s. 9d. as against £8 14s. 2d. in the case of the corresponding widower or widow, and £6 6s. 8d. in the case of a married man with a wife and one child; and whether he will take steps to remove this hardship to unmarried householders?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 15th December last to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). It was then pointed out that the housekeeper allowance could not make a difference in Income Tax liability of more than£11 17s. 6d., that is, tax at 4s. 9d. in the pound on £50 and there must therefore be other factors which account for the difference in the tax payable in the cases quoted.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that these Income Tax payers have real grounds for complaint as to an injustice,


since they have to maintain some sort of housekeeper while they are themselves at work?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Perhaps my hon. Friend would refer to the answer which I have mentioned, and in which I dealt more fully with the subject.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIE (FOODSTUFFS).

Mr. Broad: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the last financial year for which figures are available; what is the total amount of revenue raised by means of Customs and Excise duties upon foodstuffs?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The approximate amount of Customs and Excise duties collected during the financial year ended 31st March, 1936, on foodstuffs, including tea, coffee, cocoa and certain foodstuffs used in part as feeding stuffs for animals (which cannot be separately distinguished) was £36,259,000.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BASEMENT OFFICES.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has received any representations concerning Government employés compelled to work in basement offices; and, if so, what Departments are concerned and what action is proposed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): (for the First Commissioner of Works): Representations have been received by my Noble Friend from the staff sides of the Departmental Whitley Councils for the Board of Education, Ministry of Health, Board of Trade and Office of Works concerning the continued use by clerical staffs of the basement courts of the Government Offices, Westminster, Southern Block. Pending the vacation of the basement courts, in accordance with the arrangements as originally planned, consideration is being given to the points raised by the staffs as to the detailed working of the ventilation

arrangements and the improvement of the access to the basement.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Was the bulk of these people put in the basement at the end of 1929 or at the beginning of 1930?

WHITEHALL GARDENS BUILDING SCHEME.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health as representing the First Commissioner of Works whether it is proposed to go forward with the proposal to erect a block of Government offices on the Montagu House site; if not, what are the reasons for the alteration of plan; what expense will be involved by the abandonment of the project; and whether the Metropole Hotel, in Northumberland Avenue, will still be required for office purposes?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: No decision has been taken to abandon the Whitehall Gardens building scheme and, in the circumstances, the remaining parts of the question do not arise.

Mr. Bellenger: Has work been suspended, and, if so, what is the reason for suspending it?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, I understand work has not been suspended.

ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Sir Percy Harris (for Mr. Graham White): asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet decided what action is to be taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of Armaments, in view of the length of time during which this matter has been under consideration?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): The Departmental examination of the report is now completed, and the whole matter will be directly under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Sir P. Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House will have an early statement on that subject, seeing that it is now four months since it was mentioned?

The Prime Minister: That is not the only problem we have before us.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISMISSALS).

Sir Francis Acland: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Secretary of State for War at Folkestone on Thursday, 28th January, in defending the recent dismissal of five dockyard workers, that it must be apparent that if men holding such peculiar beliefs as Communism can commit crimes such as have been mentioned in the course of recent prosecutions in Moscow, such men ought certainly not to be employed in positions of trust and responsibility in Government positions here; whether this statement represents the policy of the Government, and it is therefore intended to discharge men holding the Communist belief who occupy such positions?

The Prime Minister: The policy of the Government was clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in reply to a Private Notice question by the Leader of the Opposition on 10th January, in the course of which he said that the political views of a dockyard employé
are his personal affair. As long as his work is satisfactory and his politics neither interfere with it nor lead to courses that will endanger the Navy and the State, there never has been, nor should there be, any interference with him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1937; col. 36, Vol. 319.]
This was emphasised in the course of the Debate on 26th January.

Sir F. Acland: May I thank the Prime Minister for reassuring the House that the statement of the Secretary of State for War involves no change in policy?

Mr. Kelly: Are we to take it from the statement which we have just heard read,

that the political opinions of these five men were under investigation?

The Prime Minister: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Thorne: Does not this mean that your Ministers ought to be a little more careful about what they say?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until he is head of a Government.

Mr. Thorne: Perhaps I may be some day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-night in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: The Motion has been put down rather as a precautionary measure to secure the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill and the Money Resolution, on the Paper but I do not think the House would be unwilling to take two or three non-controversial Orders which we hope to get—the Third Reading of the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, the Report stage of certain Supplementary Estimates, a Ways and Means Resolution, and the Report stage of the Money Resolution on the Maternity Services (Scotland) Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing. Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 76.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[3.30 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Colman, N. C. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bull, B. B.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Butler, R. A.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cartland, J. R. H.
Crooke, J. S.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thael)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Cross, R. H.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Culverwell, C. T.


Blair, Sir R.
Channon, H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Bossom, A. C.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Davison, Sir W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dawson, Sir P.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Do la Bère, R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Clarke, F. E.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Denville, Alfred




Donner, P. W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Lewis, O.
Salmon, Sir I.


Drewe, C.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J J
Salt, E. W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lloyd, G. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Duggan, H. J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sandys, E. D.


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Dunglass, Lord
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McKie, J. H.
Simmonds, O. E.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Everard, W. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Furness, S. N.
Moreing, A. C.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gluckstein, L. H,
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Goldie, N. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Munro, P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Grimston, R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Touche, G. C.


Hannah, I. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.




Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Peaks, O.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Pilkington, R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Procter, Major H. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hunter, T.
Ramsbotham, H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Jackson, Sir H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Keeling, E. H.
Remer, J. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)



Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Sir George Penny and Lieut-.Colonel


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grenfell, D. R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Sanders, W. S.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Sexton, T. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Shinwell, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Short, A.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Simpson, F. B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brooke, W.
John, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Thorne, W.


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, B. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Potts, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Ridley, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House will be aware of the circumstances under which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade cannot be with us this afternoon, and I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will be kind enough to extend to me indulgence in presenting this Bill, as I have neither the authority nor the experience of a Cabinet Minister. The Bill is a short Bill. It consists of three Clauses, one of which is the Title. The Bill deals with two specific problems connected with the safety of ships at sea, and those two problems are the problem connected with the sending to sea of ships that are overloaded and the problem of the supply of life-saving apparatus to fishing vessels. That is the Bill. The whole problem of the safety of ships at sea is a wide one and of the greatest possible importance, and it would, I think, be convenient, before we approach the details of a suggested change in the law with regard to some of the measures affecting the safety of ships at sea, that we should look at the problem in its broad aspect.
Whenever a casualty occurs, whenever there is a loss of life, by all means let every possible lesson that is to be drawn from that casualty be drawn by the shipowners and by the Departments concerned. Do not let us, however, get a wrong view of the perspective of the safety of the British Mercantile Marine. Safety must always be a relative term. There can never be absolute safety at sea any more than on land. There can be no finality with regard to measures affecting the safety of ships at sea. The system by which safety has been improved is well known to all hon. Members. The policy has been to lay down certain broad rules, to give extensive power to make regulations, and the industry has co-operated, as was shown in the notable speech by the Junior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson), himself a shipowner, on a recent occasion

in this House. Safety must in the last resort be a matter for the shipowner and the master of the particular ship. You cannot procure safety by legislation. You may legislate certain broad provisions, you may punish when there are breaches of those provisions, you may have whole fields of activity in which you make regulations, and you may take the greatest care to keep those regulations up to date, but in the last resort the responsibility for sending ships to sea must he the responsibility of the shipowner and of the master.
The problem of safety can be illustrated very well by a few figures. The number of total losses of United Kingdom passenger and cargo ships and the number of lives lost by shipping casualties, apart from certain major disasters like the "Titanic" in 1912 and the "Empress of Ireland" in 1914, have steadily declined, most remarkably, during recent years, and the general trend towards reduction of losses has been secured by continued and continuing vigilance and care by owners, managers, navigators, and all those responsible for the industry. Some of the figures are of interest. I have here the average annual number of vessels lost and of lives lost from the year 1900 down to the year 1936, and I think the House will be struck by the fall in the figures. The first set of figures that I am going to quote deals with the total number of vessels lost, however the vessel was lost, and I propose to give a subsequent table of vessels foundering or missing. Hon. Members will understand that a large number of losses occur by stranding or running aground, but that some of the cases which had to be investigated recently by Lord Merrivale were questions of vessels foundering at sea, and so I have thought it well to divide these statistics into two tables. The first is that of vessels lost, however lost, and the second table is of vessels that have foundered or are missing.
In the period 1900 to 1905 the average annual number of vessels lost was 84, the average annual number of passengers lost was 150, and the average annual number of crew lost was 320. From 1905 to 1910 the respective figures were 87, 109 and 296.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give percentages?

Dr. Burgin: At present I am dealing with totals. From 1910 to 1914 there was an annual average of 84 vessels lost, 467 passengers, and 593 crew. The War conditions would hardly be applicable, and I have not the figures for 1915–20, but from 1921 to 1925 they were: 74 vessels lost, 9 passengers, and 220 crew; from 1926 to 1930 the average annual loss was 61 vessels, 16 passengers, and III crew; 1931–35—45 vessels, 11 passengers, 71 crew; 1936—35 vessels, 2 passengers, 7 crew. I do not want to make any unfair deductions from these figures, but it will be seen that in 1900 the number of vessels lost was 84, and in 1936 it was 35.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the total number of ships lost for the whole period and the total number of lives lost? That will be the problem we have to face.

Dr. Burgin: Yes, the total can be calculated while I am making my speech. What I am endeavouring to show is that whereas less than 40 years ago some 80 vessels went down or otherwise came to grief in the course of the year, the figure is now less than one-half, with a more than a corresponding diminution in the number of lives of passengers and crew lost.
I told the House that I would give a second total of figures, and my reason for doing so is that a good deal of attention has been concentrated in recent years upon one particular bad patch in weather and in shipping when a certain number of vessels were lost with all hands in the North Atlantic. A number of these casualties were the subject of special inquiries, and the House is broadly familiar with the subject. These were cases of foundering or missing, and I therefore give separate figures of the average number of cargo, steam and motor vessels foundered or missing with the number of lives of crew lost. The House will appreciate that a very large number of small vessels came to grief. I have therefore, two columns showing "all tonnages," including small vessels, and "ocean going vessels of over 1,600 tons gross." In the years 1900–03 the figures were: all tonnages 15; over 1,600 tons, 4; lives lost, 170 and 83 respectively. I have the figures for each year, but perhaps it would be better to produce them in some other form. Let me

say that in 1936 the figures were: all tonnages, 6; over 1,600 tons, none; lives lost, none in either category. We find, therefore, that in 1936, so far as my information goes, no passenger or cargo vessel was reported as missing, and no lives were lost as the result of the foundering of a passenger or cargo vessel.
One commentary on the relative improvement in conditions of safety of vessels at sea can be shown by insurance rates. The Committee on the Insurance of Ships which has just made its report— Cmd. Paper 5349—observes that the more stringent regulations of modern times and the increased use of wireless have so far reduced the risk of total loss, especially of British ships, that the premium for insurance against total loss has dropped from 30s. per cent., which it was as recently as 15 years ago, to 10s. per cent. or less to-day. So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, every effort is being made to maintain and improve that standard of safety which is its constant preoccupation. The House may like to have one further figure showing the comparison of the British standard of safety and the results compared with the world standard of safety and world results. For 1935 the Board of Trade statistics indicate that 0.38 per cent. of United Kingdom tonnage was lost, while the percentage of world tonnage lost as abstracted from Lloyd's Register was 0.44. If my calculation is right, that means that Britain was six vessels better per ten thousand.
Having shown what is the broad position with regard to safety, I invite the attention of the House to the specific problem of the overloading of cargo vessels. Hon. Members will be familiar with the broad practice at ports. Vessels come alongside and take on board their cargoes. Vessels are of many different kinds, ports are of many different descriptions, and cargoes vary to infinity. It is the task of the Board of Trade to supervise the general loading of vessels and, as far as is humanly possible, to see that vessels do not proceed to sea with their load lines submerged. Under Section 44 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Convention) Act, 1932, a British load line ship registered in the United Kingdom shall not be so loaded as to submerge in salt water when the ship has no list the appropriate load line on each side of the ship; and if she is so


loaded there is an offence for which a fine can be levied. Ports, ships and cargoes, and, of course, conditions of loading, vary very much. In some cases it is a simple matter for a Board of Trade surveyor to tell instantly whether or not a vessel is overloaded. In other cases the supervision, owing to numbers and to difficulties of geography, is harder to carry out in practice, and there may have to be recourse to launches and to assistance from outdoor officers and those helping on the quayside.
Wherever the possibility of the risk of overloading is greater, so is the care taken to observe it greater still. In some ports where bulk cargoes are loaded, particularly, for instance, where coal cargoes are loaded, special care is taken with day and night watches, surprise inspections by launches, and so on. If we take one or two instances of what happens, we shall realise the human element. There is a master and chief officer on board superintending the loading operations. We will assume that the vessel is being laden with a cargo of coal, the cargo coming on board from hoppers and being delivered to the hoppers by a coal train. The point in the loading arrives when it is nearly completed and there are still one or two trucks on the quayside. It not infrequently happens that the contents of those trucks arrive on board the vessels before either the master or the chief officer is conscious that the load lines are, or are about to be, submerged.
That is an instance of, broadly speaking, accidental overloading. I am not condoning overloading in any form; there must be the greatest possible supervision to see that it does not happen. Let me give one or two instances of the way in which overloading has been pounced upon by the surveyors of the Board of Trade. The House appreciates that at the present time the law is this: That the master must not overload, that on a vessel found with her load lines submerged she is detained on the orders of the Board of Trade officer and the vessel is called upon to discharge a given percentage of her cargo or water until the vessel's trim in correct. It does not follow, because a vessel has been found with its load line submerged and because on order she has discharged the requisite amount of coal or whatever it may be to

bring back her lines to the right level, that an offence has not been committed. It may be the best possible proof of an offence that steps were taken to rectify the overloading.
I will give two or three instances of overloadings and of the way in which these matters are dealt with in practice. A vessel from Finland had loaded a cargo of coal for an African port at Barry and was due to proceed to sea. She was visited by one of the Board of Trade surveyors and was found to be overloaded to the extent of 5¼ inches. She was officially detained but released after being lightened to her proper level, after she had got rid of 75 tons of bunker coal and 35 tons of water. Proceedings were instituted under the Merchant Shipping Acts and the summons was duly heard. There was a conviction and a fine and costs. That is the type of proceedings which take place in a normal case. A Norwegian vessel at Newcastle was observed by a Board of Trade official to be overloaded to the extent of 5¾ inches. She had sailed from Algeria with a cargo of iron ore, and she must have been very much more overloaded when she sailed because the voyage had taken place in the interval and her bunkers had been consumed. The master was prosecuted and found guilty and was fined £50 in respect of the submersion and £50 in respect of increased freight and was ordered to pay the costs.
I have here a number of instances of that type of overloading—[HON. MEMBERS: "British vessels?"]—I have no doubt there are some British vessels in the list but I have chosen entirely at random one or two instances in order to point out to the House the circumstances in which this type of overloading occasionally occurs. I have particulars showing the nationality of the vessels. I have mentioned the way in which this overloading is detected and the steps that are taken to prevent it. I have particulars of cases of prosecutions ordered and of the results, and I am willing to take any year that hon. Members opposite like. As a first instance I will take the year 1936. In that year the number of cases of overloading was 13 British vessels and 22 foreign making a total of 35. Prosecutions were ordered in 17 cases; two British and six foreign convictions were obtained, while four cases are awaiting decision. I want the House to


face this problem of overloading which occurs in the circumstances that I have described.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned two British and six foreign prosecutions out of a total of 35. Does it mean that there were no convictions?

Dr. Burgin: It means that in some cases there was an offence committed; there was an overloading which in fact was corrected there and then and in which it was not thought that proceedings should be taken. If there is an offence committed and there is evidence of the offence prosecution is usually ordered, but the number of cases in which prosecution is ordered compared with the number in which the load line is submerged must be less. I want the House to realise why we are proposing in Clause 1 of this Bill that there should be an alteration of the law with regard to overloading. I have already said that under Section 44 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1932 the offence of overloading a vessel is one which is punishable by a fine. There is a more serious offence, under the Merchant Shipping Act, of taking a vessel to sea in circumstances in which the lives on board are endangered. The House will see at once that it is very difficult indeed to know what is likely to endanger the lives of passengers on board a ship at sea. It is a matter of opinion, a matter of nautical opinion, a matter on which the nautical opinion in one country may differ from the nautical opinion in another country. So as a result of a recent prosecution and comments made by the judge at the hearing of that prosecution it has been decided to recommend to the House the creation of a new offence, of taking 10 sea a ship in fact overloaded. It is melt that if it is an offence to overload a ship in port, taking her to sea so overloaded ought to be a more serious offence. Taking her to sea overloaded in a given circumstance which will imperil the lives of those on board her is already an offence.
The difficulty is, as was found in the case of the Crescenta, to find evidence in a case where a vessel was lost in the Pacific Ocean with all hands in circumstances which must to some extent remain mysterious. A full inquiry was held into the loss of that particular oil tanker and the findings of Lord Merrivale are present in the minds of hon. Mem-

bers. Lord Merrivale directed that the attention of the Board of Trade should be called to the fact that in the judgment of those who held the inquiry there was fault on the part of specifically named persons for allowing that vessel (a) to be overloaded, and (b) to go to sea so overloaded. A prosecution undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions followed, and in the result the defendants were acquitted in September of last year at the Central Criminal Court; they were acquitted by direction of the learned judge who tried the case, who pointed out that there was a difference of nautical opinion as to what did amount to endangering the lives on hoard a ship at sea, and he suggested that the Board of Trade should consider whether there was not a gap in the law, and, if so, to bring forward legislation.
It is in these circumstances that the Board of Trade, having looked into the matter of the Crescenta and the matter of that prosecution, having considered Lord Merrivale's findings that the vessel was overloaded when she went to sea, having considered the judge's observations that it is difficult to prove the degree to which overloading must take place in order to render a vessel unseaworthy —the Board of Trade comes to the House this afternoon and makes a simple suggestion: Let there be created, in addition to the offences known to English law at the present time, a new one—that if the master of a ship to which this Clause applies takes a ship to sea when she is overloaded, or if any other person sends or is a party to sending such a ship loaded as aforesaid, having reason to believe that she is so loaded, he shall in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable under Section 44 be liable to imprisonment and so on. That is the creation of a new statutory offence. I advise the House that, having regard to the remarks of Mr. Justice Greaves-Lord at the Central Criminal Court on the occasion of the trial of representatives of the owners of the Crescenta, it has been proved that there is a gap in the law, that it is necessary and expedient that it should be filled, and that the proper way to fill it is to make it a statutory offence to take an overloaded vessel out to sea. That is the whole purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Logan: Suppose that a conspiracy takes place and an owner sends a ship


to sea and there is loss of life, does it mean that these penalties are the only ones that can be inflicted?

Dr. Burgin: The Bill does not reduce the law as it now stands. If there was an offence proved, of conspiracy to send a vessel to sea in circumstances which would endanger the lives on board her, that is already covered by the law of conspiracy in one part and of the Merchant Shipping Act on the other. This Clause makes it a new offence, regardless of what nautical opinion may be in this or any other country, an offence punishable with imprisonment, if a vessel overloaded is allowed to go to sea. The taking of her to sea by the master, or knowledge that she was going to sea on the part of other persons, is made a new statutory offence. The House will see that there are two Sub-sections to the Clause, Sub-sections (2) and (3). They are drafting matters, but the House will allow me to explain them in two or three sentences. There are parts of the British Empire where vessels can register, and when we alter the United Kingdom law on merchant shipping it is necessary to see that that law is so altered as to cover British ships not registered in the United Kingdom but in some parts of the Colonial possessions. Sub-section (2) is necessary because the Merchant Shipping Act of 1932, including Section 44, has been applied to British ships registered in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Bahamas, Barbados, British Guiana, and a number of other colonies. That is a purely formal provision, which is necessary to make this change of the law applicable to ships registered in those parts of the Empire. Sub-section (3) enables the new law to be applied to certain territories. That is the whole explanation of Clause 1 and its three relevant Sub-sections.
I should like to pass from the overloading of cargo ships, which is an entirely separate and distinct matter, to that of the question of fishing vessels, and explain shortly the meaning of Clause 2. The Sea Fish Commission made a report and made certain recommendations. It is Command Paper 5130 and the recommendations are found at page 78. They deal with the inspection and safety of fishing vessels. The present position is that the law with

regard to life-saving appliances is not as satisfactory as we should like in the case of fishing vessels. Section 375 and the Fifteenth Schedule of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, are no longer practicable, and the provisions with regard to the safety of fishing vessels require recasting. The Sea Fish Commission have recommended that the general power of making rules relating to life-saving appliances in respect of fishing vessels should be given to the Board of Trade. Under Section 427 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the Board of Trade have power to make rules with regard to life-saving appliances, but it is expressly provided that these rules do not apply to fishing vessels. The very simple Amendment which I submit in Clause 2 of this Bill is that Sub-section (3) of that Section, which provides that the rules for life-saving appliances do not apply to fishing vessels, is repealed, and accordingly Section 375 and the Fifteenth Schedule are also repealed. The effect of the House repealing those restrictive provisions is to give the Board of Trade power to make life-saving regulations for fishing vessels, as they have for other British vessels at sea, and regulations in respect of those life-saving appliances are in process of preparation. They will deal, of course, with boats and all that type of gear which ought to be applied to fishing vessels in the interests of safety at sea. Clause 3 of the Bill is merely the title and requires no explanation.
I ask the House to allow us to have the Second Reading of this Bill dealing with two specific problems, and I conclude as I began, that while the safety of vessels at sea is a matter of continuous preoccupation it is a matter to be dealt with not by legislative provisions but by making regulations from time to time to fit new circumstances as they arise. These are specific instances where the law is defective, and I ask the House to remedy those defects in the law. I conclude with a quotation from Shakespeare's "Henry IV," and I would say that the Board of Trade, like Hotspur, says:
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Speaking for this side of the House I wish to say that we shall not oppose the Bill. So far as it


goes, as affecting the overloading of ships and the safety of fishing vessels we accept it. We join with the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that among the sea-going nations we have the safest merchant fleet in the world, but that is not a reason for not tightening our regulations and making the penalties of such a character that it will be to the serious detriment of ship owners and masters not to obey the law. At present there is merely a fine for overloading. The Bill now adds to that the possibility of imprisonment, and I take it it will be a case of imprisonment and/or fine. We on this side of the House suggest that the added value of the cargo should also be confiscated. It is our experience that the maximum fine is seldom imposed, and we feel that it will be equally seldom that the maximum term of imprisonment will be inflicted. As things are at present, it often pays a shipowner to overload his vessel, because the extra money he gains from the overloading is far in excess of any fine that is imposed. We say the Government should make the penalty fine, imprisonment and the added value of the cargo. We feel that would deter masters or owners from overloading vessels.
On 5th November the President of the Board of Trade was asked in this House whether his attention had been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves-Lord in the "La Crescenta" case, and whether, in view of the comments of the learned judge, the Government proposed to amend the law relating to the maximum loading of ships. The President of the Board of Trade said that he hoped to be able to make a statement. Then one Member wanted to know whether the President was aware that there was considerable anxiety on account of the infringement of the load line rule, which infringement was punishable by a maximum penalty of only £100. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us when he replies the number of cases in which the maximum penalty has been imposed upon shipowners in those cases where fines have been inflicted. The President said that such infringement was no conclusive evidence of unseaworthiness in a criminal prosecution. Then the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) asked:
Is it not clear that it is impossible within the existing law to obtain prosecutions in such cases, and is it not essential to amend the law?

The President of the Board of Trade said:
That is one of the matters that is under consideration now. If it is necessary to amend the law, I shall make proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1936; col. 246, Vol. 317.]
Presumably those proposals are what are now before the House, and while we accept them we shall ask in Committee that the confiscation of the added value of the cargo shall be included in the penalty, whether that be fine or imprisonment, or both.

Dr. Burgin: I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that what he is now asking for is already the law of the land. In one of the cases which I gave to the House a fine was imposed, and, in addition, part of the additional freight carried was expressly confiscated. The provision is to be found in Section 44 of the Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Act, 1932, which says, that in addition to a fine of £100:
Such additional fine not exceeding the amounts hereinafter specified as the court thinks fit to impose having regard to the extent to which the earning capacity of the ship was or would have been increased by reason of the submersion.
I will, of course, look into in Committee any proposal which the hon. Member puts forward, but the point appears to be covered already.

Mr. Smith: My point is that the whole of the added value of that cargo should be confiscated, and not such portion only as the court may decide. If that is already the law of the land, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will inform us of any cases where the value of the cargo has been confiscated. Another ship in regard to which there was an inquiry was the "Blairgowrie," and during that inquiry some important comments were made on the surveys as carried out by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade surveyor at Swansea was called to show what was the condition of the ship. He said that he had inspected the ship and found her in a good and satisfactory condition. Lord Merrivale pointed out that this surveyor's knowledge of the ship was derived from
observation of the load line for the purpose of seeing that she was not overloaded, and a cursory inspection on board, during which the witness 'saw several certificates.'
The annual load line survey of the "Blairgowrie" was made by a representative of the British Corporation. He


reported that he found everything in good condition. In answer to a question from the court, he said the examination was not a thorough examination. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, What is the use of imposing penalties when the examination is of a cursory character, when there is a staff that is insufficient to do the work and a staff that is fearful of detaining a ship on the grounds that she is overloaded, because any person so detaining it can be mulcted in penalties for causing the ship to be detained without good cause? Lord Merrivale said that this was
one of a long series of official examinations of the vessel which were relied on at the outset of the inquiry as showing what her condition was during the years before her loss.
He added:
Upon a careful review of the evidence it appears to us that every one acquainted with the 'Blairgowrie' from service in her must have known well that she had defects which seriously affected her condition as a seagoing ship. Examination of the surveys and repair accounts should have provoked thorough investigation into these matters by those in authority.
Further, the Wreck Commissioner said:
As to the whole question of securing the safety of sea-going ships and their crews, we feel that the existing provisions fall short of what is necessary. For instance, the load line surveys should have due regard to the general condition of the ship. The instructions to surveyors which are in existence should be made practically effective.
Is it the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary so to interpret the provisions of this Bill that the surveys will have due regard to the general condition of the ship? Are the instructions to surveyors to be given practical effect? The "Blairgowrie" was permitted to go to sea—there is not a shadow of doubt—in a condition that called forth that grave statement on the part of Lord Merrivale, although she apparently fulfilled the requirements of the law. Several other cases and several other inquiries have shown that the law is not adequate to deal with the conditions.
On this side of the House we believe that you will never get satisfactory conditions in the merchant service until the Act of 1894 is amended from top to bottom; in fact, there ought to be a new Act in regard to the new conditions that exist in sea service to-day. It must not be thought that we are blaming the surveyors for the state of affairs which exist.

We know that they are overworked and understaffed. We want to know from the Board of Trade whether it is the board's intention, having altered the law, to set up a sufficient and efficient staff to carry out that law. We say that the powers of the surveyors are too limited. Section 459 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, makes elaborate provisions for the detention of a ship in any part in the United Kingdom is she is unsafe by defective condition of her hull equipments or machinery, or if there is overloading or improper loading. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the punishment for improper load should be amended?
That is a fact which engenders danger at sea. If the Parliamentary Secretary had had any practical experience of coaling ships he would know the difficulty of loading a ship properly. Is there any law that, for special types of cargo a special system of rigging should be put into operation, known as the saddle-back? Is there any system by which the danger of shifting cargoes can be avoided? Only in Newcastle is the hopper system in operation for coaling ships. It is mostly done by tipping, a truck at a time, and most of it is boxed to save breakages. There are various types of coaling, as the hon. Gentleman will know, from dock to dock, and each of them has its own particular problem of loading. There are such costs as demurrage costs that often impel a master, the owner, or the mate of a ship who is left in charge, not to take the necessary care in that loading that one would expect him to take. Section 460 of the Act makes the Board of Trade liable for costs and demurrage, if it appears that there was not reasonable and probable cause, by reason of the condition of the ship or the act or default of the owner, for the provisional detention of a ship. That is the escape hole. That is also a term that applies to coaling ships, as the hon. Gentleman may know. Sometimes they have to cut escape holes so that they can get away after the coal is in.
Such costs and damages can come to a very substantial sum, and every Board of Trade surveyor is made aware of those possibilities. It is therefore only natural that, in every case, the shipowner gets the benefit of the doubt. It is not likely that surveyors will make frivolous charges or would carelessly detain ships. We


shall ask, in Committee upstairs, if the Bill goes upstairs, that no ship shall go to sea unless she carries a certificate, issued and signed by the surveyor, to the effect that she is properly and efficiently loaded. I suggest that the Minister should accept that Amendment. Taking the matter by and large, that is all that we have to say on Clause 1 of the Bill.
When we come to the Sea Fish Commission, the Parliamentary Secretary, just as he overloaded his case for Clause 1, so he passed over the Sea Fish Commission's report in a very cursory manner. I shall endeavour to prove that statement to the hon. Gentleman. In the Commission's report on page 19 was a series of recommendations on labour questions, and one of them was upon the question of signing on and signing off. This again is an omission of the hon. Gentleman. I quote from recommendation 60 of the report:
Trade union witnesses attached great importance to the signing on and off of crews taking place at the Board of Trade offices… In particular it was suggested to us that it would be more difficult for ' ships 'husbands' or 'runners' to obtain sums from men as a tacit condition of engaging them.
They go on to say that they do not think that this is a general custom, but they recommend:
We therefore recommend that the relevant section of the Merchant Shipping Act should be amended to render compulsory the signing on of crews of fishing vessels at Board of Trade offices in the presence of a marine superintendent.
We shall ask the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee to accept that recommendation.
With regard to life-saving appliances, which have been dealt with, we suggest that it is not good enough to give us appliances that apply only to the small coasting vessels. We want life-saving equipment equivalent to that which is given to ocean-going vessels. Trawlers, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are often al sea for more than three weeks at a time, and are practically the whole of the time in dangerous waters—the Faroes, Iceland, and so on. By virtue of their position in the sea they are often in great danger of being run down, and we ask that the conditions applying to the ocean-going vessels should be applicable to the trawler; that is, we want the line-throwing apparatus on board which at

present, and I believe under the Bill, will be a condition for those ships.
Another very old grievance that was fully discussed by the Sea Fish Commission was that of settling sheets. They say:
It was represented to us ill evidence that the safeguards in the Merchant Shipping Act designed to ensure fair dealing between owners, skippers and men are inadequate.
They describe in paragraph (a) the present methods of payment, and in Recommendation 63 they say:
After careful consideration of this problem in the light of the evidence submitted to us we recommend that Parliament should be invited to amend the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in relation to the employment of men in fishing vessels in the following respects:"—
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would not mind if I quote them—
(a) It should be made compulsory for owners to give to each member of the crew of a fishing vessel who is paid partly by share in the profits a detailed settling sheet in the form now furnished to skippers and mates.
There is no real hardship in that. The skipper and the mate get the sheet; so also should the crew who are paid by the share system, as well as by a minimum rate. They go on:
(b) It should be made compulsory for the owner of a fishing vessel to furnish to the Marine Superintendent a certified true copy of the settling sheet issued to that skipper master and crew. Failure to do so should be made an offence subject to a substantial fine.

(c) The Board of Trade should be given such powers as may be necessary to enable Marine Superintendents to satisfy themselves that settling sheets submitted to them represent the true statement of the cost of a voyage and of the proceeds therefrom Superintendents should be empowered to make such inquiries from time to time and to take any necessary action against the owners, without waiting for complaints to be received.
This is a very old grievance. The system of payment is not only by share and by wage, but there is a system of deduction, even for fresh water and breakages; such things have to be set against it.
In the past there have been certain perquisites for the crew, in the way of offal, liver and such things, that were sold to firms abroad, but in many cases that has been taken away altogether or has been whittled down to practically nothing. Nevertheless, we say that as


a right a man who is paid by this system should have a full and detailed statement submitted to him, and not, as at the present time, a mere hanging up of some statement in an office, that may be glanced at or may never be seen. In Committee, we shall ask the Board of Trade to accept that recommendation and to implement it by way of Amendment to the Bill:
Another source of discontent to which expression was given in the evidence laid before us is to be found in the present system by which the auctioneer who sells the fish at the port is usually the servant of the owner of the vessel It was suggested to us that as a result it sometimes happens that the correct amounts that the fish fetched at auction were not set out in the sales notes which are used to support the settling sheets. Thus, it was suggested that sometimes the rate on such sale sheets is less than the rate at which the fish is actually sold, or that the salesman permits the purchaser to appropriate a larger number of boxes than has in fact been knocked down to him.
It may surprise the Parliamentary Secretary to know that that is one of the grievances to which I have listened most. Chiefly the men concerned are employed by the trawler owners. They have a system of selling that is known as "behind the line." There are buyers who have given an order for the first take of fish. That is shipped away by passenger train, by the first train in the morning probably, and it never reaches the market and never finds its way on to the settling sheets. When men are risking their lives in unholy conditions—as they are, because even when a trawler comes in there are hours of work to be done—surely they are entitled to have the truth given to them. If the auctioneer, as we know is often the fact, is conniving to see that the settling sheets do not give the correct settling on them, it militates against the men getting their fair share in the catch, and is neither more nor less than robbery.
If the Board of Trade are sincere, they will accept an Amendment based upon a Recommendation. The Commission say:
To meet this complaint, we recommend that Parliament should be asked to confer upon the Board of Trade power after inquiry to prescribe by Order in cases of ports where they consider such a course desirable that the sale by auction of trawled fish which affects the settling sheets between owners, skippers and crews should only be conducted by salesmen independent of the owners of the fishing vessels.

We propose to ask the Board of Trade to accept, by way of Amendment to the Bill, that recommendation of the Sea Fish Commission. They go further and say —and this may perhaps anticipate what we may hear upstairs, if not in reply here to-day:
The amendments of the law recommended in the preceding paragraphs would throw some additional work upon the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and might entail a small increase in staff. The sum involved would not be considerable; but the financial difficulties of the present time are, we realise, such that no new expenditure of this kind would be justified unless it can be shown that it is really required for the proper conduct of an essential service. After full consideration, we are satisfied that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act safeguarding the conditions of employment in the fishing industry are inadequate in the respects indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, and should in the public interest be amended in the sense we propose. Notwithstanding, therefore, the financial difficulties of the hour, we are of opinion that immediate effect should be given to these recommendations.
We on this side of the House ask that immediate effect shall be given to them, and we ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say, when he replies, that he is prepared to accept Amendments on the lines of these suggestions. While we on this side of the House unreservedly accept Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, we would point out that here is an opportunity, when Parliamentary time is to be taken and new legislation is to be introduced, at which the recommendations of the Sea Fish Commission's Report as applying to labour conditions might be embodied in the Bill. That would lead to a saving of Parliamentary time in the future, and to the elimination of serious grievances which exist in an industry that has never been too well paid, but has always been robbed more or less by the customs that have grown up within the trade. We suggest, also, that the Amendments that may be accepted should include a provision that there shall be consultation at all times with the organisations concerned in the industry. I speak, naturally, for the men employed in the industry, and I would claim on their behalf that they should be consulted at all times as to the operation of any regulations that may be brought in for the safety of the ships at sea or in regard to the labour conditions, the wage-paying machinery, and the selling methods applied in this industry. We accept these two Clauses as acts of commission on the part of the Govern-


ment, but, when the opportunity presents itself upstairs, we shall move by Amendment to incorporate in the Bill the various recommendations of the commission which I have indicated.

4.50 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I want very briefly to say that we here accept the Bill and welcome it in every way. The reason for the Bill has undoubtedly been the occurrence of sad cases like those of the "La Crescenta" and the "Blairgowrie," and we feel that legislation which virtually deals with these two cases is not going far enough. There may perhaps be other loopholes and difficulties in connection with the original Act of 1894, while there may not be another case similar to that of the "La Crescenta." I think the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) was dealing with this Bill very much as though it were a question of altering the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, and I am wondering whether, when the Bill reaches its Committee stage, anything that he has now said will be in order, or whether it will be possible to amend the Bill on the lines he has suggested.

Dr. Burgin: It will not.

Sir H. Seely: The Parliamentary Secretary bears out what I thought, having regard to the Title of the Bill. That is why I shall, as I have said, be very brief. We accept the Bill. We see that it deals with these two disastrous and sad cases, and we wish it could have gone further, because we feel that it is perhaps time that some of these provisions were amended to bring them into line with modern conditions in the merchant shipping industry. The Parliamentary Secretary at the beginning of his speech gave some very interesting figures, and there are many questions that one would like to ask. Although we may have gone up as regards safety at the present time, after all, in 1900 there was still a large proportion of sailing ships, so that it may not be a matter for great congratulation that we have this proportion as compared with 1900, because obviously the safety line is far higher in the shipping world now, when most of the shipping is steam and not sail. We accept, however, these two Clauses, and we hope that at a future time the Parliamentary Secretary will bring in a further Bill which will deal

with the many points which have been put by the hon. Member to-day.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: As a representative of a fishing port, I should like to voice my support of this Bill in so far as it touches the deep sea fishing industry. At the same time, I should like to echo some, though not by any means all, of the regrets of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) that the Bill does not go further than it does. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that Clause 2 of the Bill was being introduced on account of a recommendation of the Sea Fish Commission, a recommendation which was also in the earlier report of the Addison Committee, from which the hon. Member for Rotherhithe quoted; and I think it is a great pity that the opportunity has not been taken to incorporate in the Bill the further recommendations of the Sea Fish Commission, and, incidentally, the report from which the hon. Member read in relation particularly to the question of settling sheets. This Bill will, no doubt, do a great deal to increase the safety of our fishermen, but it will be a great mistake to think that the Bill will relieve the calling of deep sea fishing of all and every kind of hazard. The deep sea fishing industry must, from its very nature, be an extremely hazardous pursuit for those who are engaged in it, and must make the utmost demands upon their fortitude and hardihood and, indeed, their heroism.
So far as the fishing port which I represent is concerned, I shall be very surprised if this Bill will make much difference. The deep sea trawlers which go out from Hull are, in the main, extremely well found vessels. They are, ton for ton, probably as well found and as seaworthy as, for example, the "Queen Mary." They have wireless telegraphy, they have wireless direction finders, they have Marconi echo sounding machines; they have boats, and detonators, and instruments for flinging out lines such as the hon. Member asked for, and probably nothing in the Bill will improve them so far as safety and seaworthiness are concerned. But I would like to point out that, in spite of the fact that the Hull fishing fleet is on the whole so up to date and so well found, there have been in the last six years 18 vessels lost at sea, with the loss of nearly 100 lives, and I am afraid that this Bill will not help that situation very


much. There is, however, one thing that I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary by which he might supplement the effort which he is making under this T11. A week ago last Sunday, one of the Hull trawlers, the trawler "Athethyst," sent out an S 0 S from waters North-East of Scotland because she was disabled, and not a sign or word has been heard of the trawler "Amethyst" for the past eight days. It looks very much as though she has foundered, but at any rate there is a chance that she may be drifting somewhere out in the North Atlantic, with her crew of Hull fishermen still living, quite hopeless and quite helpless. Because of that chance the Admiralty, I understand, has dispatched three ships of the Fishery Protection Patrol to go out and search for the "Amethyst." That is obviously a very useful, and even noble, work on the part of the Admiralty, and any Member who has listened to the weather reports which have been coming in for the last week will realise that these vessels are setting out on a very difficult, arduous and dangerous task.
The point I would like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary is that his Department should get in touch with the Admiralty and organise the fishery protection patrol on a more reasonable basis than is the case at the moment. There are two great disadvantages at the moment. The first is that, as I understand, the disposition of these vessels to-day is exactly the same as it was in 1882, whereas the whole balance of the fishing industry has changed since then, and now 70 per cent. of the fish landed in this country is landed in the Humber ports. The second disadvantage is that some of these vessels are out of date and obsolete, and I think that, if the Parliamentary Secretary could see his way to collaborate with the Admiralty, he would undoubtedly do a great deal to forward what he has in mind under this Bill. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe drew attention to the Addison report and the statements which it contained regarding the sale of fish at the ports. I think it is fair to point out to the hon. Member that since the publication of the Addison report there has been published a report of the White Fish Commission, and that the second report—the last report published last year—more or less withdraws

the allegations in that respect which were made in the Addison report. If the hon. Member will refer to page 28 of the report of the White Fish Commission, he will see this sentence:
The gross proceeds of sales of fish included in settling sheets were found"—

Mr. Speaker: It appears to me that this is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Law: I am sorry. I am not anxious to detain the House, and will only add that, so far as Hull is concerned, I am sure the fishermen of Hull will support this Measure whole-heartedly, and am equally sure that they will look forward to seeing it followed up by further activities on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith), I shall not oppose, but shall support, the Second Reading of this Measure, but I desire to ask the Parliamentary Secretary some specific questions with regard to Clause 2, in reference to the application of life-saving rules to fishing vessels. Under the original Act, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to which he referred, there was set up a consultative committee for the drafting of rules in regard to the vessels to which the Act applied, and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is his intention to refer the drafting of these rules to such a committee, or, preferably from the point of view of the fishermen, to a special committee having regard to the varied conditions of sea fishing, so that they could draft rules according to the circumstances applying to that particular section of the industry. Secondly, I am assuming that the Clause and the rules which have to be drafted will equally apply to drifter vessels, mainly of course in the herring fishing industry. I, therefore, support the plea that such a consultative committee should decide not only upon rules essential to ordinary shipping vessels, but for the specialised fishing vessels which the Clause is intended to cover. There is deep feeling among fishermen that such a Bill as this should be limited merely to life-saving appliances. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply that he gave me last month. Perhaps he will be able to give me some further information as to other


steps that will be taken at a later stage. The latter part of the reply was:
Considerable progress has been made in the examination of the recommendations of the Sea Fish Commission relative to settling sheet grievances but my right hon. Friend will not be in a position to indicate the action to be taken until the necessary consultations with the industry have been coinpleted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 3936; col. 1811, Vol. 318.]
I was one of the representatives present at the consultation with the trade unionists concerned over a month ago, and I have good reason to believe that we were the last of the deputation that were consulted. I am somewhat surprised that even now, after the very full consideration that was promised by the chairman and the Board of Trade representatives, something has not been done in that direction. However, I trust that we may have an assurance on the point.
Returning to the question of life-saving appliances, I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade some 12 months ago with regard to a Lowestoft vessel which was wrecked near Milford Haven, and the body of a member of the crew was found on the rocks. I would press upon the Parliamentary Secretary that, if there had been rocket life-saving lines, the probability is that disaster would not have overtaken the man, who had apparently swum ashore and climbed upon the rocks. While we welcome the steps that are to be taken, I trust that we can have some further assurance that this is but the initial step towards legislation which will ultimately embody the greater and equally important recommendations of the Economic Advisory Committee. The provisions for life-saving are very often not satisfactory and we ask him to strengthen them and to increase the inspectorate and that those responsible for framing the rules will see that, as frequently happens in fishing vessels, the lifeboat is not filled with ordinary and extraordinary utensils which are not essential in the interests of life-saving, and in other respects that it will be carried out in the interests of the fishing industry as a whole, and as a protection for those who risk their lives in going down to the sea.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: The House of Commons has repeatedly shown that it is willing to give a sympathetic hearing to any reasonable proposal designed to increase the safety

of those who work or travel in British ships, and it is evident from what has taken place to-day that the House is sympathetically disposed to this Bill. There is one point which has not yet been made which, I think, is worthy of attention. It is often assumed that, because other countries have regulations relating to the safety of life at sea similar to our own, we impose no particular burden on shipowners by Measures such as this. Though it may be true that the regulations, in many cases, are not dissimilar from our own, their administration and enforcement are often very different in foreign countries, and consequently regulations such as these constitute an extra burden on British shipowners. When our attention is directed to the need for assist ante for British ships, the question of the burden of regulations such as these and the financial effect on shipping should be kept in view. An example from my own experience of a case which is very closely akin to the matters referred to in the Bill will sufficiently illustrate my point. Some years ago I was travelling down the west coast of South America from Antofagasta to Valparaiso in a Chilean ship. The Chileans are recognised as the best sailors in South America and as having a higher standard in matters of shipping than the sailors of other South American countries. The line was in direct competition with British ships calling at the same port. We had our full complement of passengers and, in addition, the upper deck was crowded with out-of-work labourers from the nitrate fields.
On a perfectly calm day a child fell overboard. The greatest confusion resulted. No lifebelt was thrown, for the very good reason that there was none, although a notice was exhibited in a prominent position that under the safety regulations the vessel carried 12. She took a long time to go about. An effort was made to lower the two lifeboats. In one case the falls jammed in the davits and the boat dangled over the water. In the other case the boat got away, but there were two rowlocks missing. In neither boat was there an officer and, from the way they rowed about, it was evident that they had no clear idea what they were to do. Nothing further was seen of the unfortunate child. Afterwards one or two of us on board went about and examined the life-saving appliances.


We found there were not enough for the ordinary complement of passengers according to the regulations exhibited, despite the fact that, owing to the extra out-of-work people we were carrying, we had more than twice our ordinary complement. Had any misfortune overtaken the ship there must have been very great loss of life.
I do not believe it would be possible for such a state of affairs to exist on a British ship. It is well that cases like this should be called attention to, and that people should realise that to travel British is to travel in safety. I also think that the financial implication of this, the fact that these regulations are not only made but enforced in the case of British shipping, should not be lost sight of when application is made to the Government to consider the financial plight of British shipping in relation to foreign shipping, and particularly in relation to subsidised foreign shipping.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I congratulate the Government on taking the steps outlined in this Bill. We may feel that it is somewhat late, and that it required the series of accidents that have occurred before the steps were taken, but better late than never. I hope that, in any fines that are inflicted in addition to the punishment of imprisonment, there will be specifically included the amount of the additional freight earned by the vessel that may have been overlooked. As the Parliamentary Secretary and others well know that, from many causes and particularly in the case of war between certain countries in which we are not necessarily involved, British shipping being so universal, frequently very high freights may be earned. That applied in the Great War, but it applies in a lesser degree in the war prevailing in Spain at the present time. It might be a very strong temptation to the master of a ship to overload his vessel and take the risk, because of the additional freight to be earned, of improperly overloading.
When we are dealing with the question of the safety of life as far as overloading is concerned, the case of a shipmaster whose vessel went to sea without the ordinary voyage repairs being effectively carried out to bring the vessel up to

normal Board of Trade standards, would be an appropriate case for action by the Court, but presumably that cannot be included in the present Measure. It is important that the Board of Trade surveyors should be instructed that when vessels—it may be, accidentally overloaded through the ship loading two or three holds at the same time—are discovered to be overloaded, discharge should not be permitted if the vessel were found about to sail, but a prosecution taken.
From my personal experience there is no more conscientious or competent body of officials than those who are engaged by the Board of Trade in the merchant shipping service. There is a greatly increased consciousness of responsibility both on the part of masters and of owners, and they will welcome the new legislation proposed in the Merchant Shipping Bill. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take serious notice of the comments which have been made, and will see his way to secure a penalty adequate to the excess represented, which may amount in many cases to hundreds of pounds, for vessels which may have been loaded particularly during war time in any part of the world under the British flag.

5.18 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: I can reply only with the assent of the House, but I am sure it is the wish of hon. Members that I should say a few words in answer to some of the questions which have been raised in the Debate. The Government naturally are gratified at the reception which the Bill has received at the hands of hon. Members, and there is very little to which I need reply at this stage. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) who gave us, as usual, an informative speech, drawing upon some of his own personal experiences in the mercantile marine, touched upon one or two points, some of which were taken up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely). I should like the House to believe that the idea that our safety legislation is out of date really will not stand examination. I know of the temptation to make a statement of that kind and to imagine that, because the main operative law was passed in 1894 and the world has progressed very much since, safety legislation must be dated back to the same period. That is


not the case. Regulations have been made, as far as I know, up-to-date.
The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed asked whether there are no other ways in which casualties may occur and show that there are other points in the Merchant Shipping Act which require amendment? If any hon. Gentleman knows of a provision in the Merchant Shipping Act which requires amendment, he should by all means call the attention of the Department to the matter. Speaking with authority from this Box, I do not know of a safety or other provision which requires attention other than is being given to it by regulations and discussion with the societies and other bodies with whom we work. I say that with a full sense of responsibility.
The remarks made by hon. Members have gone very largely to the question of the recommendations of the Sea-Fish Commission. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe gave notice that certain matters would be raised in Standing Committee upstairs. It is not for me to say what will or will not be in order when we reach Committee upstairs. That will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee. But I think that I can give the House substantially what it is asking, and that is, an assurance that the recommendations of the Sea-Fish Commission are being taken seriously. They are: but in matters like safety in ships, it is very desirable that we should work hand-in-hand with the industry and that we should make regulations which are going not to be pieces of paper kept in surveyors' offices. I have myself made an investigation into the fishing ports of this country. I know the grievance and the point to which attention is drawn and the seriousness of the recommendations of the Sea-Fish Commission. A very large measure of agreement has already been reached between the different interests as to the form in which these recommendations should be implemented.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cannock (Mr. Adamson) mentioned a meeting on 22nd December, when the officers of my Department met officers of various organisations representing share fishermen, and there was a full exchange of views. The matter has largely progressed. If it is necessary for legislation,

there will be legislation. There is a very large measure of agreement on these matters of the Sea-Fish Commission, and I do not think that the House need trouble about thinking that it is necessary for these provisions to be included in the present Bill. The present Bill deals with safety. It deals with two specific matters which require amendment, and that is precisely the type of Bill which, in the present overcharged programme, secures quick passage, and I hope that hon. Members will not delay the passage into law of this very necessary Bill by trying to improve matters which do not fall within its title. The hon. Member for Cannock asked what rules were to be made and to what particular vessels they were to apply? There will be special rules for different kinds of fishing vessels, including drifters, and the rules when drafted by the Board of Trade will be sent to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. We shall follow the practical procedure, and I hope that with this assurance the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the provision of Clause 2 will include making compulsory the provision of line throwing apparatus?

Dr. Burgin: I cannot, obviously, give any definite answer as to what particular form of life-saving appliance will be used. The effect of the passage of Clause 2 will be to give the Board of Trade power to make regulations. The particular type of boats, floats or other life-saving apparatus are matters for discussion. I can give no pledge. There is no reason why the industry need think that there will not be consultation.

Mr. Adamson: Will the Advisory Committee have consultations with representatives of the organised fishermen?

Dr. Burgin: The actual machinery will be that the Board of Trade will have consultation with all these interests before the rules are sent to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. That consultation will, of course, take place.

BRITISH SHIPPING [CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(a) to extend by twelve months the period in respect of which subsidies are payable under Part I of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, as amended by the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Act, 1936; and
(b) to make provision for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate two million pounds, as may be necessary to defray the cost of subsidies payable as aforesaid in respect of tramp voyages and parts of tramp voyages carried out in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, and of any expenses incurred in respect of that year by or on behalf of the Board of Trade under the said Part I."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Dr. Burgin.]

5.26 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: Hon. Members will already have received Command Paper 5357, which provides the Memorandum. The Financial Resolution provides the necessary authority for carrying into effect the proposals to grant a subsidy to British Shipping for the year 1937, which was announced by the President of the Board of Trade in the House of Commons on 11th November, 1936. The subsidy, which was made available for British tramp shipping for voyages carried out during the year. 1936, expired on 31st December, and if it is to be carried on a new Financial Resolution and fresh legislation will be required. The Government were requested in the autumn of last year to renew the subsidy, and their decision to ask Parliament to do so was communicated on 11th November. The shipowners have been informed that they must make plans on the assumption that the subsidy will come to an end finally at the end of 1937, and that the industry is expected to reorganise itself, so as to ensure the continuance of the co-operation which has been a great feature of the result of the grant of the subsidy. During the last six months of 1936, conditions in the freight market were far better than for many years past. There was a remarkable increase in the rates of freight obtainable for tonnage. The freight index for December, as compared with 1929, which was taken as the index figure of 100, was no less than 127, a

higher figure than had been reached in any month during the past eight years. The number of British tramp ships in commission at the end of last year was 76 more than at 1st April, 1935, when unemployment was at its worst, and this employment of another 76 vessels means an increase of 285,000 tons gross of shipping.
But it is only a few months since the industry was passing through a period of more acute difficulty than at any time during the last few years. In the first six months of 1936 the demand for tramp tonnage was far less even than it was in the early months of 1935, when the conditions were considered difficult. The number of charters in the first six months of 1q36 was less by more than one-half than in the first six months of 1935. These difficulties interrupted a slight improvement after a long period of depression and bearing this in mind, it would be optimistic to assume that the improvement in demand in the last six months, will be sustained. In fact, since the turn of the year there has been a set-back, at first in the Plate trade, but subsequently widespread and more pronounced. Rates in some trades are now several shillings below those ruling at the beginning of the month of January.
The fundamental difficulties of the shipping industry arise from the disequilibrium between the amount of tonnage available and the amount of cargo offered. It does not yet appear that this lack of balance has been readjusted. Conditions cannot yet be said to be present for a permanent revival in this industry. Six months of comparatively favourable conditions have been enjoyed, but the industry suffered severe losses, and several years are required to enable it to repair the ravages to its financial structure. The arrears of depreciation in the tramp fleet during the years 1929–1935 amount to more than £10,500,000. This is a matter of vital importance nationally. A large and efficient mercantile marine is essential to the well-being of this country in peace and in war. The importance from the defence point of view of a tramp fleet strong in numbers and well adapted to modern conditions, need not be emphasised. The maintenance of a healthy tramp fleet is impossible unless there is proper provision for depreciation, and in the trading conditions of the depressed


years replacement of shipping was impossible. One of the most disconcerting features was the persistent decline in the number of tramp ships. Before Government assistance was given large quantities of tonnage were being sold abroad to foreign owners for trading. The number of foreign-going tramp vessels owned in the United Kingdom fell from 1,046 in October, 1933, to 908 in July, 1936. The latest returns reveal a change. The amount of tonnage sold abroad for trading in 1936 was 200,000 tons gross less than in the year before and less by 340,000 tons than in 1933, which was the worst year. The number of foreign-going tramps owned in the United Kingdom was 924 on 1st January this year, as compared with 908 six months earlier.
The system of co-operation based on the subsidy has made possible a steady improvement in rates of freight, and full advantage has been taken of the spurt in the demand for tonnage. With these increased earnings, and with the subsidy, shipowners have been enabled to meet depreciation in 1935 and 1936 to a greater extent than in the preceding years. The subsidy has been either directly or through profits on voyages used for that purpose. The amount of depreciation provided, even in these circumstances, is less than should be provided in any normal year, and there are still the arrears of previous years to be made up. I want the Committee to appreciate the importance of these statements. The Government can claim that the assistance given to the industry has proved effective. It would be reckless to withdraw support just at the first signs of returning prosperity, when the very slightest setback would have the effect of undoing all the good that has been done during the last two years, and when there is still much lost ground to be recovered. Again I would cite the figures of the arrears of depreciation.
With the stimulus of the subsidy a system of co-operation has been brought about inside the industry itself and minimum freight schemes in the main tramp trades have been set on foot. These schemes protect the shipowner against the collapse of freight rates due to contractions in demand, and enable the British shipowner to compete on equal terms with the foreigner. The value of these minimum freight schemes was brought home forcibly in the first six

months of 1936. The demand was less than half the normal, and it is certain that without the schemes, and the severe restrictions imposed by the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee upon the freedom of owners to offer tonnage in the market, the freight market would have slumped to most disastrous levels. The industry must look to the continued existence and effective working of this machinery to secure the stability of conditions that are essential to its preservation and progress in the next few years. Without the backing of the subsidy the leaders of the industry are convinced that it would be impossible to secure observance of the minimum freight schemes.
Much tramp tonnage here is owned by small companies which have not the resources which enable the larger companies to hold fast at difficult times in order to secure remunerative freights. Co-operation is desirable at all times, whether the market is favourable or not, because impatience or inability to hold tonnage off the market will spoil the prospects of a rise in freights. It is these considerations which have led the Government to agree with the conclusion of the industry that the support of the subsidy is necessary in present circumstances to the continued existence of the machinery of co-operation; but the industry must find other means of ensuring the continuance of co-operation, and no doubt they are doing their best to find measures which will enable the system to be carried on when the subsidy has come to an end.
The Government do not suggest that public money should be paid to the industry in conditions under which the industry can reasonably be expected to do without it. It will be seen, from the Memorandum on the Financial Resolution, that the Government have retained the condition that the amount of the subsidy will be reduced below £2,000,000 if the average level of freights for the year 1937 rises above 92 per cent. of the average level for 1929, no subsidy at all being paid if that level is attained. Having regard to the present conditions in the tramp market, the Government do not propose to make any payments on account until the end of the year. Hitherto, as the Committee knows, payments have been made quarterly. It is not proposed in view of the freight rates prevailing to make any payment at


all until the whole period of 12 months has expired and the freights for the whole year can be calculated and the average ascertained. It will then be possible to calculate what amount of subsidy is due, having regard to that average level of freights throughout the year.
Under the same conditions as before owners will, among other things, have to satisfy the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee that National Maritime Board agreements have been complied with regarding rates of wages, and that the right number of officers have been carried, etc. Wages and conditions of employment of officers and seamen have been improved during 1936. Unemployment among seamen, especially white British seamen, has been very substantially reduced. It is in the interests of the seafaring population that the tramp shipping industry should re-establish itself in a flourishing condition. When the subsidy was first introduced there was some fear that its effect might be detrimental to other sections of shipping such, for instance, as cargo liners. Those fears have proved groundless owing to the working of the conditions which the Government attached to the subsidy. The cargo liner section has benefited from the improvement in the market rates, and from the co-operation with the tramp owners. The value of that co-operation is, I think, generally recognised by shipowners. The premature withdrawal of the subsidy and the consequences which might be expected would mean a worsening of the condition of the cargo liner owner as well as that of the tramp.
Perhaps Members of the Committee will allow me to summarise the Government's position. A large and efficient mercantile marine is, in the view of the Government, necessary for this country for prosperity in peace and for defence in war. Tramp shipping has been gravely weakened financially by the disastrous conditions prevailing since 1929. The assistance given in the last two years has proved effective, first, in arresting decline in the tramp shipping industry, and, secondly, in improving its position. A continuance of satisfactory conditions is essential to enable tramp shipping to establish its position and to replace its tonnage. The present improved conditions depend, in part, on the minimum freight schemes, which themselves are

based on the subsidy. If international trade were to decrease, or the present distribution of shipping were altered so as to bring about shorter voyages, or if the world tonnage available increased, the international and national competition of tramp shipping for cargoes available would quickly bring about conditions which would have existed in the early months of 1936 if the minimum freight scheme, based on the subsidy, had not worked satisfactorily. In such circumstances tramp shipping would return to the state in which it was in 1933 and 1934, when the Government felt bound to come to its rescue. The public purse is adequately safeguarded against payment of subsidy in circumstances in which the industry ought to be able to dispense with it. The interests of the seafaring population are bound up with the subsidy, and the cargo liner section benefits from the conditions attached to the subsidy. Having regard to these considerations I confidently ask the Committee to approve the Resolution, and I would only add the hope that shipping conditions during 1937 may make it unnecessary, in fact, to pay the subsidy.
Hon. Members will have obtained from the Vote Office Command Paper 5363, which is the Fourth Report of the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee. I commend to the notice of the members of the Committee this Fourth Report. It is a mine of information, and is very ably prepared. It shows the position, with all relevant statistics, and is in fact potted history of the present position of tramp shipping in this country. It should be in the hands of everybody prior to the debate on the Bill which will follow the passing of this Resolution, on which it will be based, and the Second Reading of which is to take place on Thursday. It is not necessary to go in detail through the Report, but every word of it is relevant to the discussion we are now having.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: After listening to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary I have utmost difficulty in appreciating what is the actual position of the shipping industry. He seemed to blow hot and cold. At one moment he declared that the shipping services of the country were in a very satisfactory condition, and almost in the same breath he assured the Committee that it might be necessary


to pay this subsidy at the end of 1937. On the other hand, he said that conditions might still further improve and the subsidy could be abandoned. Furthermore, he indicated that although freights were still rising in 1936 a set-back had occurred, and he drew from that consideration the conclusion that it would be reckless to abandon the subsidy. Where are we? Are we in an optimistic or a pessimistic frame of mind about the shipping industry?
The essay which the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to read to us did not satisfy my mind, and I doubt whether it will satisfy other hon. Members. It will be interesting to know who prepared that precious document. Was it drafted after consultation with the shipowners, or is it the production of the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee, or does it represent the considered opinion of the experts in the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade. We ought to know. Why are we directed to peruse the report of the Administrative Committee? No information has been vouchsafed as regards the disposition of the subsidy in 1936. On that head there is not a single item of information. Before the Committee is asked to vote money out of public funds for private undertakings we ought to be furnished with some information as to the disposal of the amounts voted on previous occasions. That is the very least to which we are entitled. As to the Parliamentary Secretary's views on the state of the shipping industry, I should like to quote from a well known weekly shipping journal, "Fairplay." Recently there was a symposium of views of the condition of the shipping services and several shipowners offered their opinion. One of them said:
The sustained improvement in various markets most recently experienced encourages the hope that at long last a definite and permanent improvement from the depths of depression which has lasted for so long may continue.
That sounds favourable and is definitely optimistic, and because it is optimistic it would appear that the case for a continuance of the subsidy is not so strong as it was last year or the year before. Then Sir Vernon Thomson, President of the Chamber of Shipping and, by the way, chairman of the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee expressed this view:

In the meantime I lace the future with quiet optimism.
What about the set-back in freights? What about the fears that this subsidy may require to be continued? What about the reference to fortifying the minimum scheme by financial assistance provided out of public funds? We are either optimistic about the situation or otherwise. I confess that I do not know where the shipowners stand in this matter, except that I know quite positively that they want as much as they can get out of public funds. The question of a shipping subsidy apart from its merits, if indeed it has any merits, has had the beneficial effect, I admit, of directing attention to the position of our shipping services and to the conditions of seamen of all grades. I make the Parliamentary Secretary this concession. Our supremacy in the mercantile marine has been threatened in the tramp and cargo liner shipping, particularly in the Pacific, but the question of the Pacific is not now under review. Having regard to that situation it is quite proper to give the matter our attention.
I speak not only for myself but for every member of the Labour party when I say that we are as much concerned about the condition of our mercantile marine as any hon. Member opposite. We desire to maintain its efficiency, and, if possible, its supremacy. Much depends on the efficiency and position of the British mercantile marine in relation to our national economy. The conditions under which the men of the merchant service live demand the consideration of this House, but neither the state of the mercantile marine nor the need for improvement in wages and accommodation and the like have anything to do with the granting of a subsidy. That is a positive declaration which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to note. I mean that the wages and conditions of the men in the mercantile marine ought to be established by right; they are entitled, having regard to the risks they undertake, the privations they endure, and the kind of life they lead, divorced from their home for long periods, to the highest possible wages and the best conditions of labour. But that has nothing whatever to do with the granting of a subsidy. The Board of Trade, which is the custodian of our shipping interests, is at the same time the custodian of the men's interests and


it should occupy its mind as much with one as with the other. That is a proposition which I hope the Committee will accept. We say that the state of the service and the conditions of the men should be treated on their merits. We ask for both, but we doubt if this is the proper method.
I am ready to concede the fact that the conditions of the men, particularly as regards wage standards, have improved since the granting of the subsidy. I do not dispute that. The Maritime Board decided to restore the cuts, but does that mean that the men are better off than they were before 1929? They are, in fact, in precisely the same position, and a great deal requires to be done for the men in the mercantile marine in wage standards and conditions of labour, in accommodation, in food supplies, and cooking, before the Labour party will be satisfied. We shall raise this issue on every possible occasion. As regards the subsidy, the Parliamentary Secretary will recall that on a previous occasion we had a personal discussion across the Floor of the House on the principle underlying the provision of the subsidy. I then said, and I repeat, that we have no objection in principle to the provision of subsidies. In certain conditions they are desirable. They may afford a breathing space for a depressed industry, and they may be required in order to bolster up a new industry, but there is no longer any justification for a subsidy in this connection, as I propose to demonstrate to the Committee.
What was the original idea behind the granting of financial assistance to tramp shipping? The President of the Board of Trade on previous occasions and the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon have declared that it was necessary to provide a measure of financial assistance in order to meet the costs of depreciation; that it was impossible for shipowners to replenish their fleets in the depressed situation, and that, therefore, a measure of financial assistance was required. But we are no longer in that situation. Out of public funds we are now providing dividends for shareholders in shipping companies. The Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head, but I can prove it to him. I take it that he does not regard it as desirable that public money should be used to provide dividends for shareholders? If he is prepared to answer

that question I am quite willing to sit down. Apparently there is no answer, and, therefore, I take it he agrees that public money should not be devoted to providing dividends for shareholders.
Let us examine the position. There are several companies which received subsidies in 1936. I speculate on that head because we have no positive information. Perhaps just here I had better ask one or two questions. How much of the £2,000,000 voted last year has been spent? We have had no information. Who received the money? How much did each shipping company receive? As we have had no information on these matters I must refer to what happened in the previous year, as we have information regarding 1935. Take some of the companies concerned. There is the Clan Line. I suppose we may mention the Clan Line because it received a subsidy of £17,608 in 1935, no small amount out of £2,000,000. What is the position of that company? A representative of it sits in this House although he is not present at the moment. They had a profit in 1936 of £644,511, and they paid a dividend of 9 per cent., not had going in these depressed times. They placed £250,000 to reserve and £169,750 to depreciation. But they had reserves of £500,000 already, so they were by no means hard up. In short they were not in need of this financial assistance. At any rate these figures demonstrate, not that they were in need of financial assistance but that the company is in an excellent financial position and does not require State assistance. Moreover, this company employs Lascar seamen. It does not even comply with the conditions laid down when previous subsidies were granted. It does not pay the maritime rates of pay, it does not employ, except for four quartermasters, any white seamen among the crews in any of its vessels. What is the case for a subsidy for the Clan Line? There is no case at all.

Dr. Burgin: This is old stuff.

Mr. Shinwell: The Parliamentary Secretary says that this is old stuff, but is that so? Even if it is, there is no reason why we should not revive it.

Dr. Burgin: The hon. Member will not think me discourteous if I interrupt to say that I was merely referring to the fact that he suggested the subsidies ought


not to be paid on the older shipping lines, which are in a different financial position from the great majority of the tramp-shipping companies. That argument has been worn threadbare in this House.

Mr. Shinwell: In that case, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should answer the argument. I do not mind if it has been worn threadbare, and am sure there are other hon. Members who take the same view. Why should a wealthy shipping company having huge reserves and able to meet its depreciation costs require assistance from the State? That is a simple question. The hon. Gentleman says that the argument has been worn threadbare, but we have had no answer in the past, we have none now and we shall have none in the future. I would go as far as to say that this shipping subsidy is the biggest swindle that was ever perpetrated on the British public, and I will prove that assertion before I sit down. Let me now deal with some of the other companies. There is, first of all, the Houlder Line, having a gross tonnage on eight vessels of 58,000, which goes to show that the vessels are comparatively small. That line had a profit of £137,907 and paid a dividend of 7 per cent. Its reserves are £324,921, and it set £75,000 aside for depreciation purposes. There seems to be nothing wrong with that company. I wonder whether we can have any information as to the amount of subsidy it received in 1936. That line has no need of a subsidy. The Bank Line received a subsidy of £76,780 in 1935. I believe it received more by way of subsidy than any other company; but it had a profit last year of £338,673, although it is true that it paid a dividend of only 3½ per cent. When the profit is compared with the amount of subsidy paid in the previous year, it seems to be altogether out of proportion.
I come now to the cargo liner companies, for apparently it is on those companies that the argument has been worn threadbare. The Tatem Line, having five vessels, made a profit of £82,000 and paid a dividend of To per cent. Its total tonnage is only 25,000, so that the vessels are small. It set aside £16,898 for depreciation which was £3,000 more than the five per cent. depreciation required. The Glasgow United Company, having two

vessels, made a profit of £17,000 and paid a dividend of 7½ per cent. The total amount it set aside for depreciation was £7,183, but the book value of its vessels is only £70,000. That is a remarkable thing, and it almost amounts to a mystery. That company had a subsidy of £7,251 in 1935, which was more than the amount set aside for depreciation in the following year. Surely that calls for some explanation, especially when it is remembered that the company paid a dividend of 7½ per cent., a dividend which could not have been paid had it not been for the subsidy which it obtained.
The Maritime Steamship Company, having only one vessel, made a profit of £9,817, which is not bad for one vessel. Let it be remembered that the profit was on voyages and had nothing to do with interest on investments. It is true that it did not pay a dividend, but the total paid-up capital is only £22,500, and, more remarkable still, the book value of its one steamer is £54,000. That is a mystery which requires some explanation. Let me now deal with the Ropner Line, which made a profit of £96,000 last year. I do not know what subsidy it received—perhaps the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) can tell the House—but I know that in the previous year it received £50,504. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barkston Ash; that company has done very well indeed. I will take now the 41 principal cargo companies in the country. In 1936, they made a profit of £1,082,889, the best profit since 1930, and more than the pre-war average. I admit that the profit they made last year was not up to the profits which they made in previous years; for example, in 1927 they made £3,145,000, and in 1928, £4,999,000. It would be interesting to know what they did with those profits. I should have imagined that companies which were in that fortunate position in those years would not require to come cap in hand begging for assistance. The other day, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) intervened, when a question was being asked about the feeding of school-children, to ask whether we were going in indulge in universal pauperisation. We have here an example of pauperisation where it is by no means required.
Let me deal for a moment with the reserves of those companies. It is difficult to get the reserves of the whole


of them, but if we take 26 cargo liner companies—some of them qualifying for subsidy—the reserves are at present more than £35,000,000. What is the good of pretending that those companies, taking them by and large, require financial assistance? There may be some companies which are in a serious condition, and if they are, and require financial assistance, let it be granted, under proper conditions, but to distribute largesse indiscriminately in this fashion to wealthy companies and those which are far from wealthy is an action which is totally incompatible with the usual policy of the Government in relation to financial consideration.

Dr. Burgin: Before the hon. Member passes from that part of his speech, if he has any evidence of any tramp-steamer company that has not made losses on trading during the last few years, I should be glad to have it, as I know of none.

Mr. Shinwell: I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to give his attention to an article in "Fairplay" on 14th January, where he will see some information as to the working of some liner and cargo liner companies in 1936. I would ask him to look at the column which deals with profits on voyages, and I think it will confirm what I am saying. It deals with facts, and does not theorise and romance. Let us get at the real mystery underlying this matter. The President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary have argued that the case for a subsidy rests upon the need for depreciation. I agree that there is something in that, and I do not dispute that contention. We wish to maintain the supremacy of the mercantile fleet. It may be necessary to build and to replenish, and if the money cannot be found in private circles, it may be necessary to provide it from the State coffers. But there is a very remarkable thing about this question of depreciation. In a previous speech on this matter, the President of the Board of Trade declared that 5 per cent. was necessary to meet the costs of depreciation, assuming the average life of a vessel to be 20 years. If vessels lived only for 20 years, that would be all right, but many of them live much longer. Is that longer life taken into account?
I have extracted some very interesting material on that subject from Lloyd's Register. Obviously, I cannot quote all the companies, but the general statement is that there are many vessels, amounting to hundreds, in the mercantile marine that are over 20 years old, and I presume that the depreciation costs have been met. Another point to be remembered is that after the depreciation costs have been met, the vessels are frequently sold to foreign or British owners. Perhaps a vessel of 4,000 or 5,000 gross tonnage might sell for £4,000 or £5,000. It might fetch a reasonable price for breaking-up purposes. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the amount obtained when the vessel is sold for breaking-up purposes after it has lived a normal life—or even more than a normal life—or the amount received when it is sold to other owners, is taken into account when the Board of Trade consider this question of depreciation? I find that there are several companies in that position, and I think we are entitled to some information.
It is not sufficient merely to condemn the Government and this subsidy. Something has to be done to put the British mercantile marine in a sound position. Have the Government any other plans apart from a subsidy? The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the subsidy may have to be abandoned at the end of 1937 and that the shipowners have been told that they must make plans. In the event of their refusing to make plans or being unable to do so, will the subsidy go on? We are entitled to some information on that matter. Moreover, the subsidy is not to be provided except in quarterly allocations. That is a new arrangement.

Dr. Burgin: It is just the opposite. Instead, as hitherto, of being paid quarterly, no payment is to be made until the end of the year.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. His interruption fortifies my contention. No payment is to be made until the end of the year, and then all the circumstances will be taken into account. However, that does not meet my point. What is to be done to deal with the depressed situation? The boom will pass and the slump will inevitably follow; what is to be the position of the mercantile marine? I submit with certainty that my denunciation, in the circumstances, is


justified by this deepening mystery. At the same time, we are entitled to submit a case for reconstruction and reorganisation. There appears to be no reorganisation in the mercantile marine at the present time. Apart from the minimum freight arrangement, where is the reorganisation? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us that. I know of no other reorganisation which is now taking place.

Colonel Ropner: Will the hon. Gentleman say what sort of reorganisation he has in mind?

Mr. Shinwell: I am coming to that. I am by no means an expert in reorganisation in the shipping industry, but I shall venture, in a moment, to offer a suggestion. The first thing we want to know, however, is whether the Government have any plan. Hand-to-mouth methods will not do and what is here proposed is a hand-to-mouth method. I suggest, to begin with, that there should be an inquiry into the whole situation, into the position of the mercantile marine, into the question of whether or not there is need for reorganisation and rationalisation, into the operation of the subsidy scheme, and in particular into the question of depreciation and replacement in the fleet. That inquiry ought to be conducted by independent inquirers, not necessarily by the Board of Trade, although under its supervision or at its request, and certainly not by the shipowners. They might properly be asked to tender evidence, but they ought not to conduct the inquiry. We ought to have some information, as a result of such an inquiry, on the question of reserves and also as to whether there are undisclosed reserves. That is the first condition in relation to the grant of financial assistance. The fact ought to be placed before us and all the cards exposed. I think that is only fair. The public have a right to know the facts before one penny out of State funds is granted, irrespective of the arguments of hon. Members in this House.
Moreover, we have to consider the fact that a new situation has arisen. One of the difficulties that beset the tramp-shipping companies is the fact that much of their trade has been taken over by cargo liner companies and liner companies. That situation cannot be remedied by subsidy, unless it is intended that for all time the tramp-shipping

industry is to be carried on the back of the State. It would be much better to take over the industry and nationalise it, or put it into the hands of a public utility concern. In any event, as time goes on, more and more of the tramp trade will be lost. In the old days, when tramps went about all over the ocean, picking up cargoes here and there they sometimes sailed thousands of miles in ballast, and they sometimes made profits and sometimes made losses. Now, it is all different. Cargoes can be picked up in particular ports regularly. They are known to be there. Arrangements are made between shipping companies and traders and cargoes are taken to be unloaded at specific ports. Tramp shipping cannot overcome that difficulty of the competition of the liner and cargo liner companies, by any measure of financial assistance. That consideration should be taken into account in any inquiry which may be held, and, whether there is an inquiry or not, it is a matter to which attention ought to be given.
A further point is that there ought to be an independent representative on the Administrative Committee. That has been suggested before and the suggestion has been rejected by the Government. Why should there not be a seamen's representative on the Administrative Committee? We were told that one of the conditions of the grant of the subsidy —although it was not specifically mentioned in any document—was that seamen's conditions would be safeguarded. In that case, the proper thing to do is to put a seamen's representative on the committee concerned and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take a note of that request. I have no desire to prolong the Debate. We are opposing this Resolution, not because we desire to do anything inimical to the mercantile marine, but because we believe that a subsidy is no longer required. Moreover, we are not satisfied with the administration of the subsidy. We are convinced that the shipowners are holding back something. Last but by no means last—and this is the real substance of our case against the subsidy— we believe the time has arrived when some other scheme, more substantial, more permanent and more likely to assist the industry, should be introduced by the Government. I repeat that we are not opposed to subsidies in principle if cer-


tain conditions are respected, but a subsidy of this kind is not going to do the tramp-shipping industry any good, it is not going to do the mercantile marine any good and therefore we oppose the Resolution.

6.23 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: The hon. Gentleman is a master of special pleading, and although I do not propose to follow him along some of the paths he has attempted to lead me, I hope to be able, in the course of my remarks, to show him that, in general, the financial position of the shipping industry, particularly the tramp section of that industry, has justified a grant from State funds. Those who have noted the present and the past opposition of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the subsidy must have been disappointed if they expected the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to make any sort of concrete proposal or suggestion as to what ought to take the place of the subsidy. He suggested an inquiry. I assure him, and I think he already knows it to be true, that the Board of Trade conducted a minute and meticulously careful inquiry into the conditions of the tramp shipping industry before a subsidy was granted.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was competition between tramp shipping and cargo liners and that cargo liners were eating into the tramp shipping trade. But tramp ship owners have never asked for Government assistance to protect them from their colleagues who run cargo liners. I have never supported the industry's claim to a subsidy on the ground that tramp shipping was losing money or was passing through a difficult time. What I have always maintained and still maintain is that the Government must assist British shipping if foreign shipping is being helped. It is no concern of the Government whether shipowners are enjoying good times or suffering bad times. What they ought to concern themselves with, is whether, compared with foreign owners, British owners are doing well or ill. If the British mercantile marine were dwindling, solely because trade was bad, I, for one, would have no complaint. What I do complain of is that the industry is dwindling because of unfair foreign competition. It is for that reason that I have on past occasions supported, as I support to-day,

the Government's proposals to grant a subsidy to the industry.
It is well that we should realise early in this Debate that if the present level of freights is maintained the shipping industry will not receive a single penny of the £2,000,000 covered by this Resolution. The Parliamentary Secretary said he considered that it would be disastrous to withdraw the subsidy under present conditions. But that is exactly what is going to happen in the course of the next year. It is a condition of the subsidy that its receipt is entirely dependent on the level of rates of freight and I repeat that with rates at the present level, no subsidy will in fact be paid.
There was one other observation of the Parliamentary Secretary to which I would draw attention. He said that the cooperation achieved during the last two years had enabled British owners to compete on equal terms with foreign owners. With all due respect, I submit that that co-operation has done nothing of the sort. What has enabled us to compete on equal terms with the foreigner has been the fact that British shipowners have received the subsidy but schemes of freight cooperation, covering some of the important markets of the world, have in fact assisted foreign owners every bit as much as they have assisted British owners.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: And very often more.

Colonel Ropner: No. Referring again to the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, surely it is time that he and his party learned that capital and labour are partners in industry and that both deserve an appropriate reward. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are often so over-anxious to support their doubtful claim to represent Labour, that they become oblivious of, or even hostile to, the legitimate demands of capital. I am not saying anything new when I remark that labour is of little service without capital and that capital is useless without labour.
I am constrained to make those remarks because of the unreasonable and prejudiced observations to which we have just listened. The subsidy, as I hope to show, has brought very considerable advantages to that section of labour which is employed by the British Mercantile Marine. I ask hon. Members opposite,


is all help for ever to be denied to the capital which is invested in that industry? Do hon. and right hon. Members opposite wish to see obsolete ships replaced, do they desire more employment in the shipping industry, do they believe that new capital can be attracted to this important industry unless there is at least a prospect of some return on that capital? They must wish for more employment and a larger mercantile marine, but if capital invested in that industry remains entirely unrewarded or, what would be even more deplorable, if capital were to be lost, then I submit that under any economic system the British Mercantile Marine will gradually but quite certainly disappear.
Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen opposite are really rather more enlightened than the impression given by their speeches would indicate, and perhaps they would be ready grudgingly to admit that capital might under certain circumstances deserve a certain return. Perhaps it is only that they consider that capital invested in the tramp section of the shipping industry has received too high a return during the last few years. If that is the position, let me help to disabuse their minds of that belief. The year 1929 has become the standard year in the shipping industry. The onset of the slump was hastened towards the end of that year, and levels of the rates of freight and so on are referred to that year. I should like to give the House a few facts and figures which I hope will illustrate that capital employed in the shipping industry has not been over-rewarded during the last seven years. I am going to speak about two companies. Both of those companies are under the same management. I believe that, combined, they represent the largest tramp shipping concern in the country, and if hon. Gentlemen oposite are going to accuse me of quoting figures that have reference to certain selected companies, I can assure them that the financial position of these companies is on the whole a great deal better than the general average. The capital of the two companies together comes to £1,750,000.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Which are the two companies?

Colonel Ropner: They are the two companies which I manage.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman name them?

Colonel Ropner: They are the Ropner Shipping Company and the Pool Shipping Company. The capital of those two companies is about £1,750,000. The dividends over the last seven years have averaged just under 1 per cent. If I omit the year 1930, in which year there was a certain carry-over from the better year of 1929, the level of dividends over the last six years is under one-half per cent., and the grand total for both companies for the seven years is about £130,000, and that is about one-eighth of £1,000,000. I have reduced the figure to a fraction of £1,000,000 because when I deal, as I am now going to, with what has been the reward of labour during that period, I shall be forced to speak in terms of millions. Direct wages paid during this period have been almost exactly £1,000,000. More than 2,000,000 tons of coal have been bought, at a price of nearly £2,000,000, and about three-quarters of that 2,000,000 tons of coal have been shipped in ports in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members will appreciate that even where bunkers are taken at foreign ports they are very often British coal. More than two-thirds of £1,000,000 has been spent in repairs and in modernising, nearly £1,000,000 has been spent on new tonnage, and there have, of course, been large payments in addition to provide the necessary victualling, paying loading and discharging expenses in innumerable ports, trimming, stores, and so on. I feel certain, in view of those figures, that even hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that in the case of those two companies very much larger sums have gone to reward labour than have gone to reward capital during the last seven years.

Mr. Shinwell: I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member will tell us what are the reserves of those companies.

Colonel Ropner: I would be perfectly willing to give the hon. Member the exact details as regards reserves, but I am not presenting a balance sheet to the Committee. Without going into too great detail, I am showing what expenditure has been made by these companies. I am not quite certain why the hon. Gentleman opposite wants to get at the figures of reserves. I am trying to show that, whatever may be the financial position of the companies, a certain reward over a period of years has gone to the shareholders and a certain reward over


a period of years has, either directly or indirectly, gone to labour.

Mr. Shinwell: I gather that the hon. and gallant Member's argument is this: Whether the companies are wealthy or not, and whether their position is financially strong or not, the Government should come to their assistance. Is that the hon. and gallant Member's case?

Colonel Ropner: The hon. Member is leading me into an argument which I hope to pursue next Thursday, if I am sufficiently fortunate to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. But briefly, with proper regard to what is happening in other nations, that certainly would be my argument. What I am trying to show for the moment is that over a period of seven years labour has received large sums, whereas the capital invested in the industry has received very little. I have told the Committee that I have quoted the case of two companies which are in an extremely strong position, but if the general average over the whole industry is taken, it will be seen that, far from the industry having made large profits since 1929, in point of fact depreciation has not been covered. The depreciation in the case of 214 companies amounted to some £18,000,000, and only £8,000,000 has been paid from all sources—subsidies and profits on voyages—and there has consequently been a direct loss in capital of some £10,000,000.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does the hon. and gallant Member insist on taking 1929 as his starting point? Why will he not take 1928, when, in accordance with "Fair Play," the profits of the principal cargo boat companies were £4,994,000?

Colonel Ropner: I am ready to admit —in fact, I do not count it as an admission—that 1928 was a better year than 1929 and that 1929 was a better year than 1930. I am taking 1929 as my standard year, because, as I have said, that has become the reference year of the shipping industry. No doubt, if I went back to the war period, I could show large profits in shipping, but if I went further back, to the beginning of the century, equally I could show very large losses. There must be some datum line, and 1929 has now been recognised for some years as the convenient datum line. If the hon. Member wishes me to refer

my figures to some other date, I am quite ready to do so. It will not mitigate the fact that over the last seven years serious losses have been made by the shipping industry.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: If over the years in question the companies which the hon. and gallant Gentleman represents have dissipated their reserves outside the industry, they have no right to call upon the nation to reimburse them for any loss which they have made, having so dissipated their reserves.

Colonel Ropner: I do not know what dissipating reserves outside the industry means.

Mr. Smith: Giving bonus shares, for instance.

Colonel Ropner: If that is the allegation, I can deny it. There is no question of giving bonus shares. There is no question of any such thing having been done. That remark illustrates, of course, the danger of the special pleading of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). It is very easy to point to one company and say, "This company, owing to efficiency, good fortune, or foresight, is in a prosperous position and therefore should not get a subsidy, while some other company, which has been foolish or, shall I say, has dissipated profits by issuing bonus shares and is to-day on the verge of bankruptcy, is in a bad position and therefore should get a subsidy." I am certain that if the hon. Gentleman will look a little further into this question of the distribution of the subsidy, he will be forced to the conclusion that you have to take a view of the industry as a whole. You must not reward inefficiency by giving subsidies and penalise efficiency by withholding them. You must make up your mind—Is this British industry having a fair deal to-day? Yes, or no? If it is not having a fair deal—and I submit that shipping is not, in the face of unfair foreign competition—you must find some method of distributing the subsidy that will be fair to all.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is that the principle applied under the means test? If a man has saved £10, do you say, "We will not take you on the average"? No. You say to the chap who has saved £10 that you will wipe him out.

Colonel Ropner: I am not dealing with the means test, although I am quite prepared to do so on some future occasion. During the last two years there has been a disastrous loss of capital in the tramp section of the shipping industry. There has been a considerable loss of employment, and the British Mercantile Marine has shrunk by something more than 3,000,000 gross tons. I hope the Government and hon. Members opposite will notice this fact, that the size of our merchant navy is still shrinking. Hon. Members opposite had better revise their ideas with regard to the financial position of the industry if they desire to see employment and wages maintained at even their present level.
The subsidy, which has been opposed on more than one occasion by the Opposition, has not only enabled insignificant dividends to be paid in exceptional cases, but it has, if I may quote a speech of my own last year, "saved the British Mercantile Marine from its rapid approach towards disintegration." I should like the hon. Member for Seaham, who has just described the subsidy as the biggest swindle ever perpetrated in modern times, to ascertain what those whom he claims to represent think of the subsidy. The National Union of Seamen described 1936 as a "wonderful year of achievement." They also said that "even the most pessimistic cannot say that we have had anything but a year of wonderful achievements" — wonderful achievements in spite of the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Let me give hon. Members an outline of what the subsidy has enabled the shipping industry to do for those whom it employs. In the case of officers it has raised the rates of pay to such a height that they now stand above the 1929 level. A new manning agreement has been arrived at. A restoration of the 1932 cuts in the wages of crews has been achieved, new agreements for the regulation of hours of duty have been made, and a new dock manning scale has been agreed, meaning on a ship of about 9,000 tons two additional deck hands. The question of crew accommodation is receiving to-day far more attention than it has ever received before, not because of any allegations which have been made in previous years by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but because, for the first time for many years, shipowners have had slightly larger sums

to devote to these questions and have been able to incur items of expenditure which they could not previously afford.

Mr. Shinwell: This is rather important as showing the shipowner's point of view. Do we understand that seamen's and officers' wages are being assisted out of Government funds and that if it had not been for the subsidy the cuts would not have been restored? Does the hon. and gallant Member say the same in regard to conditions of labour, hours, accommodation, and so on? Are we to understand that it requires State financial assistance before the seamen are to get a fair deal?

Colonel Ropner: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman calls a fair deal. I am stating that the position of the industry two years ago was such that owners could not afford to pay more than a certain rate of wages. The Government gave a subsidy and the level of freights attained a certain standard. With the subsidy, and, with freights at their then level, owners were able to draw up a new agreement with the officers and seamen and to increase the wages to both. I am not going to try to divide up what goes into an industry and say, "This particular £5 note must be regarded as subsidy, and that particular £5 note must be regarded as profit." All I can say is that the position of the industry with the subsidy was such that shipowners were able to do something for seamen that they would not have been able to do without the subsidy, which was opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can go further and give a figure which will illustrate even more clearly how the subsidy has helped the crews. Irrespective of profit or loss one-third of the subsidy is now being immediately passed on in the form of additional and higher wages.
I have not dealt with the future of British shipping. Many problems still remain. The subsidy has been administered in such a way that the moment it stops, whether it be in good times or bad, the British Merchant Navy will be in a worse position than ever before to meet foreign competition. Great chunks are still day by day being carved out of trades in which this nation once had almost a monoply by foreign State-aided competitors. The subsidy has not, as it might had done, brought any permanent benefits to British shipping. Meanwhile, let us note for future reference that hon.


Members opposite are again opposing a Resolution similar to two other Resolutions brought before the House in previous years, the result of which has been to bring at least a temporary betterment in the conditions of employment of men whom they pretend to represent. Although we have been brought no permanent help by the subsidy, we have at least been given temporary assistance from which all engaged in the industry have benefited during the past two years.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It was my misfortune last year to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), and I ventured then on a prophecy:
If there was one thing which impressed me more than another in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash it was his certainty that this was only the second occasion on which he was supporting a subsidy and that the last occasion would be a great many years hence if he had his way. I saw no indication that he had any suggestion to offer which meant finality in this matter. The right of the shipowners to put their hands into the public pocket having once been secured, it is evident that it will be a long time before they agree to give up that right.
I am bound to say that if I were only as sure of the winner of the Derby this year as I am of the hon. and gallant Member being here next year to repeat the same statements, I should not be worrying about my financial position at the end of the year.

Colonel Ropner: History is repeating itself in other respects. Would the hon. Member read the reply which I made to him last year?

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member said:
I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. This is not the time to make alternative suggestions. I am prepared, on the right occasion, to make suggestions which I sincerely hope will lead to a termination of the subsidy, but that is not what we are discussing this afternoon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1936; cols. 804–5, Vol. 308.]
We never are discussing the termination of the subsidy according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is jam yesterday and jam to-morrow, and he gets his jam to-day, which is rather better than Lewis Carroll's version of the story. If the hon. and gallant Member supplied a condemnation of the whole system of subsidy, it

was in his closing remark. Is it not quite clear that while we go on temporarily doing something for the industry, which he himself says does nothing towards placing it in a permanently sound position, we shall neglect the greater issues which are at the bottom of the trouble of this industry? Throughout the world we hear people who regard themselves as leaders of thought saying that what is wrong with the world is the system of subsidies, quotas, tariffs and everything that is put in the way of international trade, and that until we can get rid of them there will not be any health in the international economic situation. They say it everywhere. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge of overseas trade announced that the situation was so severe now in this country that, unless the foreigner looked out, we would have to put on some extra tariffs so as to prevent further goods being brought into the country by the ships that our seamen want to man. That was not quite how he put it, but that was what he meant.
The feeling on this side of the House is that these subsidies merely put off temporarily a serious dealing with a situation that everyone admits requires to be dealt with. No one could have dealt with it better five or six years ago than the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade this afternoon. Anything that we say now falls far short of the lucid and convincing exposition he was then able to give of the desirability of unhampered and untrammelled international trade. I could not follow the answer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), when he asked him about the relation of this subsidy to wages. I gathered that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that without the subsidy wages would not have been improved because they could not have been. He said, I think, that one-third of the subsidy had gone to the people employed in the industry, in the restoration of cuts and not really in improving the conditions and bringing them up to the pre-crisis level.

Colonel Ropner: The level of wages is better now than it was in 1929.

Mr. Ede: But with regard to the men in lower ranks than officers, I gathered that it was merely a restoration of the pre-crisis condition. From my conver-


sation with officers, I am bound to say that they do not regard the present scale as one that represents any excessive generosity on the part of the owners. The hon. and gallant Gentleman left us to guess where the other two-thirds of the subsidy had gone. Although he did not hold a very high view of our intelligence in the course of his remarks, I want him to feel that we are capable of realising that the other two-thirds must have gone to the companies. Either in profits or in some other way, the other two-thirds has been a direct benefit to the companies. The hon. and gallant Member dealt in the earlier part of his remarks with the appropriate reward of each section of industry—of capital and labour. Are we to assume that, although, perhaps, in his view, only with regard to the industry in which he is interested, out of any given sum one-third should go to labour and two-thirds to capital?

Colonel Ropner: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman really expects an answer to a question of that sort, but of course the obvious answer is No.

Mr. Ede: I cannot see why the hon. and gallant Member should have spent such a time in demonstrating how truly great this subsidy was from the point of view of the people engaged in the industry, the wage earning and salary earning section of the industry. Surely the hon. and gallant Member's speech only proves this: that the two particular companies in which he is interested and for which he spoke this afternoon are in this matter not unlike the remaining companies and bodies of employers and industrialists who have benefited by the subsidies given by this House in recent years. They are merely daughters of the horse leech; the more they get the more they want. He himself admits—and this is the final condemnation of the subsidy—that the period gained by the subsidy has not been used in an attempt to secure a permanent sound basis for this industry. That is the only basis on which I would be prepared to grant a subsidy. In the course of the economic difficulties with which the whole world has been faced it may be advisable to pay subsidies, for the State to come to the assistance of some hard-pressed industry; but surely only on the basis that while the subsidy is being paid some effort will be made to find a permanent solution for the difficulties.
My complaint is not that the Government have paid a subsidy. That might be justified. But an indiscriminate subsidy never can be justified all the while you maintain a means test with regard to people who happen to be out of work through no fault of their own. I cannot see the logic and justice in an indiscriminate subsidy while a very strict means test is imposed on people who have to obtain State relief for individual necessities. There should be some discrimination in the way the subsidy is given all the while you maintain the means test, and it should be used as a means of insisting that the industry shall be reorganised on a basis which will mean its better use in the future. Because I have no indication of that I am bound to follow the lead so ably given by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) this afternoon. I trust that if this subsidy is to be renewed there will be an earnest effort on the part of the Government to restore international trade, which will help the shipping industry far more than any subsidy, and that the industry will be placed, with regard to conditions of labour 'and its internal organisation, on a basis which can be defended.

7.4 p.m.

Sir John Withers: There is a very good old proverb which says that the cobbler should stick to his last, and it is most unusual, almost unseemly, for a university Member to address the House on shipping matters. But I have been greatly interested in this subject purely as an amateur. I have no connection, directly or indirectly, with any shipping company, or anything of that sort, either by investment or management or in any other way, so that I speak as a member of the public. I have been greatly interested by the White Paper, which I have read with very much pleasure. It is full of figures and intricate matters and you cannot master it in a morning. It came out this morning, and it is very difficult indeed to get to the bottom of it. But there are a considerable number of things which struck me as being extremely satisfactory, and also suggestive. The first matter which struck me was the question of employment. It seems perfectly clear that while unemployment among masters and officers has been reduced there is now practically no unem-


ployment in this country among British white seamen.
By the end of 1936 there was a shortage of trained engineers and seamen which threatened to become acute.
That is a very great advance surely. It is remarkable also how the volume of laid-up tonnage has fallen. On 1st April, 1935, laid-up tonnage was 126 vessels, or 396,000 gross tons, but on 31st December, 1936, that had fallen to only 10 vessels, or 31,000 gross tons. Surely that is very important. After allowing for scrapping vessels, sales to foreigners and other factors, the net increase in employment on 31st December, 1936, was 76 vessels, or 285,000 gross tons, a fact which is reflected in the improved employment of British officers and men. There is improvement in the hours of duty. The distinct 1936 achievement of the National Maritime Board, as far as crew ratings are concerned, has been the conclusion of agreements regulating the hours of duty at sea on foreign-going vessels. There was also an increased manning scale.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Does not that rather postulate that prior to this ships were unsafely manned?

Sir J. Withers: Very likely. All I can say is that I am pointing out an improvement. I do not know what the position was before, but admittedly there is an improvement now, which, after all, is the great thing. I hope that this subsidy will be continued at present, and I am very pleased that it should be continued on the lines taken by the Government. It is not to be paid at all until the end of 1937 and then only on certain conditions which show that it is required. That does away with a great deal of the criticism which has been levelled against this matter. I was always brought up as and still am at heart a Free Trader. I am entirely in favour of what has been said by hon. Members that the only way we can recover our trade supremacy is by Free Trade among all nations. I hate subsidies and tariffs, but if ever there was one which is justified it is this one. I hope that it will be so successful that it will be discontinued. I sympathise entirely with the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell), who opposed this Resolution, in the fact that if this subsidy is going to be in any way continued there ought to be an in-

dependent inquiry. That I am strongly in favour of. It might be appointed by the Board of Trade, but it should include a working seaman for the purpose of ascertaining the conditions under which crews live. Under these conditions and with these criticisms I support the Resolution.

7.10 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, who represents me so ably, need apologise for intervening in this Debate. On the contrary, it would be a bad thing if discussions on subsidies in particular should be confined to interested persons. It is our responsibility, especially as Members of this Committee, to scrutinise all financial provisions most carefully. That is the primary duty of this House. When it goes into Committee, when the Mace is taken off the table, the House should go carefully into all matters of money and see that it is properly spent. The difficulty with subsidies is that, once started, they are difficult to stop. The whole case for the subsidy was built up by the President of the Board of Trade, who has been very usefully employed in America. I hope that his journey there will not be wasted. The whole case for the subsidy during the last two years has been the world depression, the low rates of freights, the difficulty of replacing tonnage, and, lastly, the difficulty of many of our boats keeping on the water. Owing to new circumstances, quite beyond the subsidy, the industry is now in a comparatively sound condition. Whatever the causes, freight levels have risen, cargoes are far more plentiful, there is a great demand for shipping, and, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly pointed out, there has even been a shortage of men in certain sections of shipping.
Does not this seem to be the occasion to drop the subsidy completely? It is true that there are guarantees that a subsidy will not be payable if a certain level of freights is reached, but would it not be wiser to drop this Bill and if some catastrophe arises which disturbs the freight market the President of the Board of Trade can come down to the Committee and build up a case for a revival of the subsidy? It is quite clear that in this year 1937, on the basis of the facts and figures available, this industry should now be on a sound economic basis and should not require the assistance of the


State. For that reason I do not feel justified in voting for this Resolution. The House of Commons should only be committed to this artificial method of running industry under very exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances do not exist in 1937, and therefore we are not justified in approving the principle of the subsidy. As the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) quite rightly pointed out, the real, the only final hope of shipping being in a prosperous condition is the revival of world trade.
There are signs of a possible better spirit. A start was made at Geneva when the Prime Minister of France, M. Blum, made an appeal to the world to drop subsidies, quotas and other artificial barriers to trade. A response has been made from almost every country. What is going on in America to-day, the conferences, the relations between Canada and United States, all point in that direction. In the newspapers this morning it is stated that the Prime Minister of Sweden has expressed a desire to cooperate with other countries in coming to an understanding. Then is not this the wrong time for the Government to come forward with a proposal which asks the Committee to agree to the principle of subsidies? Is not this a time when we should hold over these proposals in the hope that in this new year there will be a new spirit in international trade? I think it is unfortunate that while the President of the Board of Trade is travel-brig home from America, I hope with some good proposals in his pocket, perhaps an agreement for better relations between this country and America not only as regards trade but as regards shipping, we should be asked to accept the principle of subsidy.

Sir J. Withers: Is it not really better and less trouble to make a provision to carry on the subsidy and to be able to slop it if required than to have to go through all the paraphernalia of introducing a new Bill and carrying it through the House of Commons?

Sir P. Harris: I am surprised that an orthodox economist such as my hon. Friend should preach such very bad doctrines. One thing the Committee has to do is to keep a tight hold over the purse strings. We have no right to commit Parliament to a subsidy unless an over-

whelming case can be made out for it. I really do not think we are justified in placing this serious commitment on a hard-pressed Exchequer. It would be wiser to wait until a real occasion for it arises.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) put forward a peculiar argument. He suggested that conditions pointed to everything being set fair for the industry in 1937 and that we should do away with the subsidy at once. We are only in the first days of February, and tramp shipping is a most precarious industry in which we may get three months up and six months down, and although credit must be given to the work of the committee administering the subsidy, one of the main reasons for the present temporary improvement in the tramp shipping industry is that the dictators of the world are frightened of the position of affairs owing to harvest failures in Europe, and there is a sudden pouring in of grain from all quarters of the world. That is the basis of the present improvement. If the hon. Member opposite had his way he would have the dictators stop there, and there would be a finish to this temporary improvement in the tramp shipping.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and I am glad that two other Members have spoken who are not ship owners, because I think it is a doubtful policy for hon. Members interested in a trade to be standing up and talking about it, as it is bound to be prejudicial. I take no exception whatever to the remarks of the hon. Member for Seaham, because in many respects they were pertinent, and they were of a very different type from the remarks which have been previously addressed to the Government and from the point of view of the Opposition I think that there was considerable weight behind them. I would sum up the hon. Member's argument as a plea for an inquiry into the whole position if money is to be handed out and that there should be a means test, so that money shall not go to firms already in a good position, but only to those which actually require it. I am not prepared to stand up here to refute that argument. I think the Government can make out a case for the principle of a means test, although, incidentally, the Opposition


want to do away with the means test, but that case would not necessarily apply to industry on the larger scale. I would point out to the Opposition that we have not really had any further suggestion from them. I gather from their last few election programmes, that they would nationalise the industry. In that case they might raise wages and improve conditions, but in the long run they would be facing exactly the same troubles as have faced the private owner and might lose as much cash as the private owner has. I take it that they have no suggestion apart from that to offer, and I will come back to that.
I wish to make an appeal to the Opposition, from a different point of view to allow this Resolution to go through to-night, but before coming to that I think it would be ungracious if the opportunity were not taken to pay a slight tribute, which I have no doubt the Government will endorse, to those members of the shipping industry who have, during the last year, given so much of their time to work on the various committees in the effort to try to improve the conditions of the industry. It is all voluntary work, and it has been excessively hard work, but they must feel that the results have justified their efforts. I have always said that if we did not want to see the British tramp fleet diminished we must give a subsidy of some sort, because it is to the individual advantage of the stronger owners to see their weaker opponents retire. The Government, in their wisdom, thought a subsidy was necessary because they did not want to see the total tonnage of tramp shipping diminish. I should like to address a remark on that point to the Parliamentary Secretary, because it is bound to arise relative to the question of what the tramp tonnage of this country should be. In peace time we cannot divorce the amount of our tramp tonnage from the actual amount of world trade, but there is an idea that we should have a subsidy to bring British tramp shipping up to a certain level and hold it there, irrespective of world trade, for the sake of national defence.
If we are to keep our tramp tonnage artificially high, especially in view of cargo liner competition, we must go on giving it artificial stimulus by subsidy or

other means, but I feel that the Government ought rather to take the view that it is not so much a question of the actual tonnage of British ships from the aspect of national defence, although that may be important, as of ability, if war comes, to replace losses by building quickly. That is a matter for the Imperial Defence Committee, but it is pertinent to this subsidy. During the last War this country carried not only for Britain but for all the Allies. Possibly the same need might not arise in future, because other nations are taking care that they shall not be short of tonnage, and I think the Government, rather than concentrate on the actual size of the merchant fleet, should devote themselves to preparing a scheme for replacing losses quickly if war should come. Tramp tonnage is more vulnerable to-day than it has ever been. Vessels with a speed of 10 to 11 knots are still being built, although the speed of aeroplanes and of submarines has vastly increased since the last War.
I come to the last part of what I have to say. Taking freights at their present levels I think most of us would he against the subsidy, but it is to be remembered that it is a subsidy on a sliding scale and that at the present level of freights there can be no subsidy. The main reason why I ask the Opposition to allow this Resolution to be passed is that it will assist to maintain the measure of co-operation and organisation which has been set up in the industry. I can see an hon. Member opposite raising his eyebrows, and no doubt he is thinking, "Why is that not possible without a subsidy?" That is a natural question. I say the industry needs a breathing space. It will be said that we have had subsidy for two years, but in the last six months the tramp shipping industry has been caught unawares: I do not think it was ever expected that freight rates would recover as they have done. I have given some reasons to account for that rise; the failure of harvests has created much demand for shipping.
If we ended the subsidy now it would produce chaos. One of the good things about the subsidy has been that it has given the industry a lead towards organisation. At the moment there are conflicting opinions in the industry. Some say, "If the subsidy finishes, let


us go on with organisation voluntarily"; others say, "Let us have no schemes at all," and there are those, a pretty strong section, who say, "Let us have an enabling Bill passed through the House of Commons, without any subsidy, which will force co-operation." That is the present position among owners—a complete confusion of thought as to what is best for the future. If we maintain the present subsidy provisions there will be what I may call a semi-voluntary period. Owners will see that there is not much chance of drawing subsidy this year, if freights remain fairly high, but the various administrative and co-operating committees will continue to function. Owners will begin to formulate schemes of their own, and in the future there may be a very good chance of the industry not costing the taxpayer a penny. On the other hand, as I have said, if the Bill does not pass, the position may result in complete confusion.
The President of the Board of Trade told us in November, I think, that we should have to lay our plans on the basis of the subsidy ending in 1937. The end of 1937 would give us the breathing space required, and I should think the subsidy could be continued without cost to the nation. My last remark must be concerned with the necessity for organisation and co-operation. It was essential to stop what was becoming suicidal competition among British tramp owners. If we allow this organisation to be carried on, I hope on a voluntary basis, it will establish an organised industry ready to cooperate with the foreigner in some cases and in other cases to fight him. I am convinced that those industries of Britain which have to compete in international trade in future will not be able to do it as little, individual units. I do not say you will have to go to the full Socialist programme; I do not think you will, but industries will have to organise themselves so as to be able to co-operate with the Government. You had Japan just now moving vast quantities of grain from Australia up to Japan, but not a single British ship is used. Germany moves quantities of things from Manchuria to Germany, but again no British ship is used. There is question of the movement of timber from Russia, and here little, individual units of shipowners in this country can never do that; they will have to be organised. Conditions of

employment and many other things can be much better handled by organised companies than by individual units.
The whole matter makes one think—it would not be in order to go into this—that the question of a Minister of Marine will have to be considered. The Board of Trade have too much to do at the moment to be able to give a fair deal to British shipping, and to give it all the detailed attention it should receive. I have tried to show that co-operation is essential, and that by trying to let this Resolution go through, and the Bill afterwards, we shall help the industry to reorganise, with a very good chance of not costing the Exchequer a single halfpenny. I am glad to be able to support at least one Bill which does that.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) made it quite clear that we on this side do not oppose subsidies as such; and that if there were circumstances which justified a subsidy in any particular industry, we as a party would be in favour of the same. I think, therefore, we are entitled to examine, in the light of any personal experience we may have, whether these subsidies to the maximum extent of £6,000,000, which will terminate this year, have had any results which might justify us in taking a lenient view of the situation, and in supporting such a subsidy. My personal desire, as far as the shipbuilding industry was concerned, was to see a lessening of the unemployment which was so very prevalent, particularly upon the north-east Coast; the port of Tyne is one of the leading tramp tonnage centres in the United Kingdom. Since the subsidy began, whether or not due to that, we have had this felicitous result that the monthly returns given by the River Tyne Commission of tonnage laid up, indicate that at last we have reached the stage, as was announced at the last meeting of the Commission, in which there is no tonnage laid up except for repairs, or which is of a scrap quality, which will ultimately, when arrangements have been made with bankers and other interests, be scrapped. That clearly indicates that, for one reason or another, the result which I personally desired to see has been achieved.
We are also a great shipbuilding centre. Shipbuilding in the port of Tyne,


on the. Wear and the North-East Coast is one of our stable industries, and people rely upon it for employment. I know that the anxiety of the shipbuilding employés for a revival of their industry is no less great than that of the unemployed miners and others in industries which have been stricken in the declension of the general trade of the country. I am assured—one is entitled to take the assurance of persons who do know—that quite a considerable number of new ships have been laid down as a result of the increased sense of security which industry presently enjoys. The question of a subsidy being used for the purpose of paying dividends, ought to receive consideration at the hands of the Committee. Whether or not a means test ought to be applied, would be a matter for careful consideration. It is important to remember that some of the larger undertakings which have undoubtedly had substantial benefits from the subsidy are precisely those which are able in bad times to lay up a proportion of their fleets, and while so laying up their fleets are able to sustain the laid-up vessels without trouble or difficulty. But when the subsidy came along, I had the privilege of examining some of the voyage accounts worked out in detail. I saw that some of these larger companies—I suppose lesser companies also—perhaps had three voyages in succession outward and inward which showed a loss, but that the amount of the subsidy just enabled those particular vessels to be worked without actual loss. When one has personal experience of that character, it is not with any sense of disloyalty to one's colleagues that one puts that information before the Committee.
With regard to freights, 1929 was a year in which, under normal conditions of trade, shipowners were able to make reasonable profits—certainly not excessive profits—and the requisite improvements in their tonnage in the way of maintenance and replacements of their fleets. But I will assert that prior to the introduction of a subsidy, several friends of mine in the shipping world were unable to undertake proper voyage repairs, and I am not at all astonished that the offences brought to the attention of the House—it is lamentable to have to say this—were due to the risks taken, which should never

have been taken, because of the depressed condition of the industry. When the Government are prepared to grant a subsidy, it certainly should not be granted except under conditions in which those employed in the industry have the highest possible conditions of labour, so far as the industry is concerned. I go further, and say it would be equitable and just that wherever public moneys are voted by this House there should be a measure of public control. I would look to that measure of public control as being the precursor and forerunner of public ownership. In Germany and Japan, wherever Government money is advanced there is a strong measure of Government control, and Government representatives are placed upon the boards of such concerns.
The mercantile marine ought to be in this House a matter of prime importance. In peace time it is essential for the maintenance of our food supplies, and in a thousand other directions it is as important to maintain the highways of the seas as to maintain other highways through these islands. For that reason, the mercantile marine ought to be maintained in some form or other by Government control or Government intervention in times of peace; and this is very much more important in war time or when war is possible. The quality of the mercantile marine ought, therefore, in the normal way, to be maintained in a state of high efficiency. With regard to quantity, during the last few years there has been a continual dwindling in tramp tonnage, and one hon. Member mentioned that there are no less than 3,000,000 dead weight tons less than a year or two ago under the British flag. That is a situation to which the Government must pay the closest attention, otherwise certain cardinal interests of the State will be jeopardised.
It ought to be normal and without controversy that the Minister should agree at once that upon all committees in which Labour is interested Labour should be represented. What possible justification can we have in not having it represented? Labour is represented on certain boards, and well represented on the National Maritime Board. Every shipowner in the country will say that it has been of great advantage to have this co-operation and good will; and the fact of calling in expert know-


ledge from the workman's point of view has proved beneficial to the industry itself.
It is entirely reprehensible that shipowners or other industrialists can come to this House and plead their own case for State money. I am a member of a municipality in the North of England. The rules enacted by this House lay down that any person who has a financial interest in any contract which comes before that council shall be prohibited from speaking and voting, and actually from sitting in the committee or council in which such matters are under review. If that is good for municipalities, it ought to be equally good for this House. In 1923, when I was first in this House, we should have looked with astonishment at any Member representing any particular industry who advocated State grants for his particular industry. We have changed since that time. Our standards of morality have depreciated; it is time that the House, in defence of its own probity, should pass such a Resolution as would once and for all prevent those who are directly financially interested in any concern from advocating the advance of State money temporarily or permanently to the same.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: There are only one or two very short points on which I shall claim the indulgence of the Committee. It was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) that it seemed an unfortunate time at which to ask for the renewal of a subsidy when certain statements had been made which seemed to be the precursors of freer conditions of international trade. I should like to inform the hon. Baronet that, so far as Liverpool is concerned, in September, when we who represent that city were much oppressed, and depressed, by the condition of the shipping industry—the hon. Baronet may know that in Liverpool alone there were over 37,000 unemployed in the shipping and allied industries, a matter which was very much in our minds when the pronouncement referred to by the hon. Baronet came out—we and those who advise us on shipping matters decided that we would not at the moment go any further into the question of assistance for the liner part of the industry, and would put on one side the plans we had formed in order to get the further assistance which we thought we

could justly claim. That was in September. It is now February of the next year, and, in spite of the optimism that the hon. Baronet has shown, I cannot see any break in the clouds which would justify any further cessation of our action. I myself would infinitely prefer it, and I am sure that those in Liverpool who are affected by the doldrums of the industry would infinitely prefer it, if we could put ourselves in the position of being able to set these provisions in action when we required them, rather than that we should strip ourselves of the ability to do so.
The hon. Baronet went further, and said that the financial position of the industry at the present time did not justify the suggestion of a subsidy. I know it may seem rather difficult at first sight to see the full implication of the figures that have been given, but there is no doubt that, if a 5 per cent. depreciation is reasonable—and few people have questioned that as a figure—the figure given earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary was correct, and a depreciation of over £18,000,000 ought to have been provided for in the last six years. Of that, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, only £8,000,000 has been provided. Whence came that £8,000,000? My hon. Friends know that about a quarter of it, at least £1,500,000, came from the 1930 figures, that is to say, from earnings in the period before the slump; and, of the balance of some £6,500,000, the bulk, or at any rate half, was provided out of income obtained from investments and property of the companies, and not from trading. Only £3,000,000, or one-sixth of the depreciation which any wise man would insist on in order to replace his fleets, has been earned during that period of six years, with the assistance of the subsidy. I find it difficult to conceive of a situation in which it could be more justified.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) questioned the distribution of the amount between the different sides of the industry. I do not want to prolong our consideration of this matter, but I am sure the Committee will bear with me if I say that not only has the National Union of Seamen claimed the last year as a wonderful year of achievement, but the section of the industry to which the hon. Member referred, namely, the officers who are represented on the National Maritime Board, said that the improvement in the officers' conditions


was one of the finest achievements of the board, and would give satisfaction to the officers and encourage them to continue. In all the troubles of the industry during the last 15 years, and some of us are very familiar with these troubles, there has never been a year when such general satisfaction was expressed with the negotiations that have taken place. That is the view expressed from the Labour side of the industry, and, when it coincides with the existence of the subsidy, we surely have something with which we can justly be satisfied. The passage at the foot of page 5 of the White Paper issued to-day brings us back to the original ideas with which the subsidy was granted, namely:
A. minimising domestic competition; B. improving freight rates and conditions; C. promoting as against foreign subsidised competition the fullest possible employment of British tramp shipping and of British officers and seamen.
Have these intentions been justified? As regards the minimising of domestic competition, apart from the question of minimum freights we have the position in the River Plate trade. There was an accumulation of tonnage on the River Plate, and the restrictions which were successfully enacted prevented further tonnage being sent out to add to those accumulations. That is an example of the minimising of domestic competition which has been successfully carried out. As regards the improvement of freight rates, I have not heard any hon. Member opposite protest against the fact that, while the River Plate rates were 12s. before the subsidy, they have now gone up to 25s. in the rate issued on Friday; and, to a lesser extent, on the St. Lawrence voyages and on the Australian voyages the freights have been improved. I have already dealt with the question of the promotion of employment, and I ask the Committee to say that, bearing in mind the intentions with which we set out in bringing this subsidy into operation, it has been successful in bringing about these achievements, and that we ought to continue it without hesitation for another term.

7.56 p.m.

Major Neven-Spence: I hold no brief for shipping companies or their shareholders, but I claim to hold a brief for a very large number of officers and men employed in the industry. One of the counties that I represent sends a higher pro-

portion of its men to the Mercantile Marine than any other county in Great Britain and I have had ample means of knowing what this shipping subsidy has meant to the officers and men in doing away with unemployment. I had a letter the other day, not in connection with this Resolution, in which it was pointed out to me that in the case of one parish in Shetland, with a total population of 500 men, women and children, 20 men were serving at sea in command of merchant ships, and practically all the rest of the young adult males were at sea. At the time of the slump many hundreds of Shetlanders were thrown out of work. They lay at Grangemouth, Bo'ness, Leith and other ports till all their money was gone, and then, one by one, they went back to Shetland to live on their relatives. That went on for several years until this subsidy was started. Then, as soon as the first ships began to get to sea under the subsidy, men began to get work again.
Hon. Members may argue as to whether or not the wages are adequate, but this subsidy has meant jobs, wages, and work for these men, roofs over their families, and bread and butter; and I think the House will say that it would be wrong to interfere with the subsidy unless overwhelming evidence were produced that the shipping industry could stand on its own feet. No such evidence has been produced, and I defy hon. Members to produce it. If and when evidence could be produced that the industry could stand on its own feet, I should not support the subsidy, but, until that day arrives, I shall support this subsidy in the interests of the employment of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine.

7.58 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: One or two questions have been addressed to me during the course of the Debate, to which, perhaps, it will be convenient that I should reply. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) asked for particulars of the subsidy for the year 1936. Of course, when the payments for the last quarter of 1936 have been paid, the usual White Paper will be laid giving the names of the various shipping companies that have participated in the subsidy. The fourth quarter's payments have not yet been made, but I may tell the Committee that in the first quarter £273,072 was paid out, in the second quarter £427,832, and


in the third quarter £462,279, making a total of £1,163,183 for the three quarters. As soon as the fourth quarter's payments have been made, so that we know what has been paid to each separate shipowner during the year, the usual practice will be followed of issuing a White Paper.
Some comment has been made as to whether the payments ought not to be given to poor companies, and not to companies that have the best reserves. The Committee, however, will not need to be reminded that the legislation under which we have been proceeding hitherto provides for the payment of subsidies in respect of vessels running particular voyages under particular conditions, and does not discriminate as to the owner of the vessel and the state of his balance sheet; and it is on that basis that the Committee is being asked for a Financial Resolution to provide funds for the administration of a Bill which will continue the same principle for a further period.
Some reference was made to sales of vessels abroad, and I think the Committee should know that one of the most gratifying results of the change which has been made as the result of Government assistance to the tramp shipping industry has been the decline in the number of vessels sold abroad, whether for breaking up or for trading. I will give the figures for two years only. In the year 1934, 489,000 tons gross were sold, of which about 200,000 were for breaking up and about 300,000 for trading. The total for 1936 was 422,000 tons, namely, 143,000 for breaking up and 279,000 presumed for trading. That is a very considerable improvement.
Something was said about the age of the British merchant fleet. As a result of the scrap and build scheme which was part of the subsidy policy, 50 new vessels were added to our fleet, and the proportion of vessels on the United Kingdom register over 25 years old is now less than in any other important maritime country; 38 per cent. of the shipping of the world less than five years old is British-owned—a percentage 3½ times as high as that in any other maritime country. The argument in favour of continuing the subsidy is that, if you are pushing a rock uphill and come in sight of the top of the hill, you do not leave go and let the rock roll down again.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with the question of the age of

vessels of the mercantile marine but has not dealt with the point that I raised, namely, whether, when vessels over the age of 20 years were sold for trading or for breaking-up purposes, the amounts received were taken into account.

Dr. Burgin: I was not attempting to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. I was telling the Committee that one argument in favour of the subsidy was that the age of the fleet had been lessened and that we now hold a very large percentage of modernised tonnage. I have not followed the hon. Gentleman in any of his ramifications into the financial side of the matter, because the whole of his observations were premature. He must await the White Paper at the conclusion of the year's working of the subsidy to see how it has operated. He will find a vast mine of information relating to 251 shipping companies set out in the Command Paper that has been issued to-day.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that I, in common with others on this side, must wait for 12 months before making up our minds whether the subsidy was justified because not until then shall we have the whole of the financial provisions before us?

Dr. Burgin: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not understand anything of the kind, because nothing of the sort could possibly be based on the observations that I made. He was making a number of comments on the habit of voting Government money without inquiring precisely where it had gone under a previous Vote. In the first place, a great deal of information which has neither been absorbed nor communicated to the Committee is set out in the report of the Advisory Committee which has been issued to-day. There is ample information as to payments to 251 principal shipping companies, with precisely the money paid, the number of companies, the number of tramp vessels, tonnage, the amount of capital provided for depreciation and dividends—a very large part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. But he went on to ask, What about the subsidy for 1936? I tell him that the subsidy for 1936 has not yet been completely disbursed; consequently I am unable to tell him to whom it has gone because I have not that information. He asks me, in the calculation of depreciation reserves and so on, is the sale of a vessel taken into account? The answer is that every


relevant consideration is taken into account.

Mr. Shinwell: By whom?

Dr Burgin: By those who are responsible for the administration of the subsidy.

Mr. Shinwell: What I want to know is this: In relation to the cost of depreciation, and the amount that must inevitably be set aside to meet depreciation, does the Board of Trade, in considering the amount of subsidy required, take into account the amount fetched when the vessels are sold after 20 years' life when all the cost of depreciation ought to have been met?

Dr. Burgin: The subsidy that has been voted in the two years that have passed has been fixed by the House at

£2,000,000, upon a review of the whole of the facts relating to the industry. The proposal that the Government lays before the Committee to-day is that a similar amount be treated as the maximum—that the conditions of the payment of subsidy be the same—and they produce a White Paper showing that the subsidy in the past has provided the very stimulus it was intended to provide, and has brought about in the industry changes that are admitted to be very far-reaching indeed, and it asks the Committee to sanction £2,000,000 being set aside for the industry.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 80.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[8.6 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Ellis, Sir G.
Munro, P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Errington, E.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fox, Sir G, W. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Assheton, R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Furness, S. N.
Petherick, M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Pilkington, R.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Prooter, Major H. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E, B. (Portsm'h)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, J. R.


Bracken, B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Salmon, Sir I.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salt, E. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hopkinson, A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Selley, H. R.


Bull, B. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hunter, T.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kimball, L.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Storey, S.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Lewis, O.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crooke, J. S.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Train, Sir J.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Davison, Sir W. H.
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dawson, Sir P.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Denville, Alfred
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Markham, S. F.
Wise, A. R.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Duggan, H. J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Eastwood, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirenoester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sir George Penny and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sanders, W. S.


Adamson, W. M.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Ammon, C. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Barnes, A. J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Batey, J.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bevan, A.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Broad, F. A.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Bromfield, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Brooke, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Burke, W. A.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Chater, D.
Milner, Major J.
Viant, S. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Montague, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Owen, Major G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, J.
Whiteley, W.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Potts, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. P.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T. E.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [28th January].

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS V.

Resolutions reported,
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,800,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Grants to Public Assistance Authorities in England and Wales.
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,494,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Grants to Public Assistance Authorities in Scotland.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [28th January].

Resolution reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937,

the sum of £5,294,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lieut.-Colonel Colville.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That—

(1) for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to maternity services in Scotland, to amend the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, and to provide for the combination of local authorities for certain purposes under the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) to local authorities (in this Resolution referred to as 'authorities') on whom additional expenditure is imposed in respect of any year in the third fixed grant period by the provisions of the said Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) requiring an


authority to make adequate arrangements for the provision to women of the services of domiciliary midwives, and to take steps to secure that there are available for women (not being in-patients in hospitals) who apply therefore—

(a) facilities for medical examination, treatment and supervision during pregnancy, childbirth, and the lying-in period;
(b) facilities for medical examination at least once after the expiry of one month after childbirth; and
(c) the services of an obstetrician,
of a grant in respect of that year calculated to the nearest pound by multiplying half the amount of the said additional expenditure by the weighting factor and dividing the product by the aggregate weighting factor; and

(ii) to every authority of an amount equal to one-half of the aggregate expenditure incurred by the authority in each financial year in paying, by way of compensation to midwives who, in pursuance of the said Act, surrender or are required to surrender their certificates before the expiry of three years from the commencement of the said Act, such sums as will be sufficient to provide compensation equal, in the case of midwives who are required to surrender their certificates, to five times, and in any other case three times, the average net annual emoluments derived from their practices as midwives or maternity nurses during such period as may be provided in the said Act;

(2) for the purpose of sub-paragraph (i) of the last foregoing paragraph—
(i) expenditure imposed as therein mentioned on an authority in respect of any year shall be deemed to be additional if, and to the extent that, it is estimated, subject to the approval of the Department of Health for Scotland (in accordance with directions given by them as provided in the said Act) to exceed the expenditure incurred by that authority in making such arrangements and taking such steps as aforesaid in the financial year ended on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-six:
Provided that the said direction shall, so far as reasonably practicable, require that the amount of the expenditure imposed as aforesaid on an authority in making arrangements or taking steps for the provision of any such service or facility as aforesaid (other than the services of an obstetrician) but excluding arrangements with voluntary organisations employing midwives or by means of clinics shall be estimated by reference to

the estimated average net annual cost incurred by local authorities in making arrangements of the like nature for the provision of such service or facility, such cost being calculated on the basis of each birth in respect of which the service or facility is provided or on such other basis as the said Department may with the approval of the Treasury decide to be more appropriate in the circumstances;
(ii) the expression 'weighting factor' means the quotient obtained by dividing the weighted population of the area of the authority, as determined at the commencement of the said Act for the purpose of the apportionment of the General Exchequer Contribution, by the estimated population of that area as so determined;
(iii) the expression 'aggregate weighting factor' means the quotient obtained by dividing the aggregate weighted population of the areas of all the local authorities as determined as aforesaid by their aggregate estimated population as so determined;
(3) in this Resolution the expressions 'fixed grant period' and 'General Exchequer Contribution' have the same meanings as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Sir Francis Fremantle: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the House is prepared to give a Second Reading to the Deaf Children (School Attendance) Bill, which is entirely unopposed? It is only a single Clause Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member is too late. The Adjournment has been moved.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes after Eight o'Clock.